Fireflies E07 preview

1957 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tally-ho
Tally-ho's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 30 min ago
Joined: 07/23/2011 - 04:15
Posts: 1085
Location: France

A few examples of fins done right to increase the surface area :
Eagle Eye X6 // Skilhunt H03 // 4Sevens maelstrom X7 // Sunwayman V10R (secure and removable deep-pocket-carry-clip done right)

No need to make a bigger head when the surface area of thermal exchange is already bigger with fins done properly.

SKV89
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 12:46
Posts: 2491
Location: US

My favorite is the TR-J20. The massive finned head on this thing can probably handle 10k+ lumens continuous if using an efficient driver and leds.

I also love the massive fins on the Olight SR90. Hoping they release an updated version with modern LEDs and drivers.

cclight
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 12/17/2016 - 15:53
Posts: 90
Location: Brazil

SKV89 wrote:

I just took some lumen measurements at 1s -> 30s -> 60s

D4 XP-L HI 5D (62.8g) : 3,310 -> 1,009 -> 250

D4S XP-L HI 5D (142.2g) : 3,577 -> 3,210 -> 2,670

C8F 18650 (195.2g): 3,170 -> 2,870 -> 2,820

Measured weights exclude battery

Did you configure the Emisar’s for max temperature?

I agree with SKV89 that increasing the head mass will improve the turbo runtime, and it’s really useful. I don’t know how much it’ll improve but comparing my D4 and D4S, both set to max temp, the difference is indeed big. Further, for me it won’t make a difference in EDC so better safe than sorry.

Niko
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 22 hours ago
Joined: 02/08/2018 - 09:55
Posts: 147
Location: inside flashlight

E07 look well but for me 25 degree is not option. I have no where to use. it would be nice to have a spare option of 15 degree.
also samsung leds!

Tally-ho
Tally-ho's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 30 min ago
Joined: 07/23/2011 - 04:15
Posts: 1085
Location: France

cclight wrote:
I agree with SKV89 that increasing the head mass will improve the turbo runtime, and it’s really useful.

By milling deep fins, the thermal transfer by convection is increased while the mass is reduced. Wink
SKV89
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 12:46
Posts: 2491
Location: US

cclight wrote:
SKV89 wrote:

I just took some lumen measurements at 1s -> 30s -> 60s

D4 XP-L HI 5D (62.8g) : 3,310 -> 1,009 -> 250

D4S XP-L HI 5D (142.2g) : 3,577 -> 3,210 -> 2,670

C8F 18650 (195.2g): 3,170 -> 2,870 -> 2,820

Measured weights exclude battery

Did you configure the Emisar’s for max temperature?

I agree with SKV89 that increasing the head mass will improve the turbo runtime, and it’s really useful. I don’t know how much it’ll improve but comparing my D4 and D4S, both set to max temp, the difference is indeed big. Further, for me it won’t make a difference in EDC so better safe than sorry.

I never configured the temp but it gets burning hot. Max temp is probably set higher than on my D4s.

SKV89
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 12:46
Posts: 2491
Location: US
Tally-ho wrote:
cclight wrote:
I agree with SKV89 that increasing the head mass will improve the turbo runtime, and it’s really useful.
By milling deep fins, the thermal transfer by convection is increased while the mass is reduced. Wink

I would sacrifice some mass for additional fins. Although I would love to see 1+ min turbo, having higher sustained low-mid power level is more useful for me than extending turbo runtime. However, they can easily add back the mass by thickening the shelf and walls.

leaftye
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 07/25/2012 - 17:43
Posts: 4336
Location: San Diego, CA
SKV89 wrote:
I just realize the weight is specified at only 138g, which is even less than the Emisar D4S that weighs 142.0g. Very disappointing considering this has 7 LEDs and D4S has 4 LEDs. This light will be another hand burner like the original D4 which cannot maintain any useful lumens due to poor heat sinking. I hope Fireflies add at least another 40g to the head otherwise it would be a waste of a potentially great pocket flashlight that could also serve for practical use.

I actually agree, but mostly because I think this light is slightly too short. I’d prefer it to be closer to 110mm long for better ergonomics, and lengthening it creates room for that extra mass. I barely use my D4 because it’s short enough to be awkward to hold, which is made even worse by the lack of a lanyard attachment point. My DQG Tiny 26650 is too short too.

The low mode should be lower.

Reviews: Efan IMR18350 700mAh 10.5A, <a href="http://

Mildlyangryjohnny
Mildlyangryjohnny's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/22/2018 - 01:18
Posts: 85

SKV89 wrote:
My favorite is the TR-J20. The massive finned head on this thing can probably handle 10k+ lumens continuous if using an efficient driver and leds.

I also love the massive fins on the Olight SR90. Hoping they release an updated version with modern LEDs and drivers.
!http://www.flashlight-blog.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/IMG_0931_thumb.jpg!

YES! The trj20 thing. Thats what i was thinking. In copper.

Dmitriyrus
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 18 hours ago
Joined: 05/09/2014 - 12:56
Posts: 37

Hi guys. I want to buy batteries in advance.
What do you advise?

Di_Joker
Di_Joker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 16 min ago
Joined: 02/21/2018 - 08:07
Posts: 142
Location: RU

Dmitriyrus wrote:
Hi guys. I want to buy batteries in advance.
What do you advise?

Shockli 21700 4550mAh, Samsung INR 21700-40T (preferably)

Sorry for my poor english.

Agro
Agro's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 35 sec ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 4155
Location: Ślōnsk

SKV89 wrote:
Agro wrote:

A major weight increase that you propose won’t bring it anywhere near C8F in Turbo time. If stock D4 has 10s turbo, E07 has 12.5 and E07+40 has 15.5.

Where did you pull these numbers from? To me these are completely baseless and is misleading for those unaware. I suspect turbo is designed to last 30s on the E07 as is. By adding 40g to the head as I suggested, it will last much longer. Adding 40g to the head of the E07 is almost doubling the mass and should be close to 100+ g and will allow turbo runtime to increase much more than 3 sec while brightness decreases much slower.

I just tested my C8F again and at 2 minutes, it only dropped to 2,680 lumens but for some reason abruptly dropped from 2,670 lumens to 70 lumens at 2.5 minutes (timed step down or defect?). However, the head was still comfortably warm at 2.5 min.


I don’t know where did you get the 30s from. Myself I did a quick calculation based on assumption that turbo time is directly proportional to mass and inversely proportional to number of emitters. As I noted this method has flaws but should arrive in the ballpark of being correct.
SKV89 wrote:
Agro wrote:

But anyway: unless the light has a lot of resistance this will be a D4-style hotrod and extra weight won’t change that. If you don’t like it, it’s probably not the light for you.
D4 was a very divisive light. For many it was the light of the year. But it received lots of criticism for what it was – the hottest hotrod out there. I believe E07 will receive a lot of sympathy from those who loved D4. And lots of hate from those who didn’t.

I understand some people like yourself do not need the light to be practical and do not care about having stable output for longer periods. I also understand some never use their lights over a couple hundred lumens but there are much smaller lights for that.

You’re very wrong. I care about regulation and I care a lot about practicality. But I can live without the former and the latter is precisely the reason why I don’t like adding mass for mere improvement to turbo time.

My use case is to have just a couple of hundred lumens sustained. But I blast turbo to either get a better view of some area or to see farther. Usually 10 seconds is enough. Sometimes it’s not. But those cases are definitely not worth a weight increase.

SKV89 wrote:
However, there are also some people who prefer a Turbo that last much longer than the 20sec on the D4. I actually use my lights for work purposes illuminating large interior spaces and I see this light to have the potential to replace my TC20, which can maintain about 1,000-1,200 lumens and is the current best for its size. I also own 3 D4 and only use them as toy lights because I can’t find any practical application for them.

“Maintain” means efficiency and heat shedding capabilities. Not weight. And 1200 lm is not turbo, it’s just a medium mode.
7 emitters give good efficiency, though with a different driver that could be better. On the head-shedding side the head is barely finned and quite small.
Effectively, I don’t see this light as a sustenance queen. I’m far from being certain about that though.
Agro
Agro's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 35 sec ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 4155
Location: Ślōnsk

Di_Joker wrote:
Dmitriyrus wrote:
Hi guys. I want to buy batteries in advance.
What do you advise?

Shockli 21700 4550mAh, Samsung INR 21700-40T (preferably)

11.11 might be a good time to buy batteries.
Depends on the needs
  • Samsung INR 21700-30T – for max output
  • Liitokala Lii-40A – good cell for a good price
  • Samsung INR 21700-40T – very good cell, a bit better than Lii-40A
  • Shockli 21700 4550mAh – very good cell, not very expensive
  • Sanyo NCR21700A – very good high-capacity cell, though I would hesitate to use it frequently with a hot-rod like that

Myself, I have Lii-40A already (and no light to use them in Wink ). If I didn’t have them, my pick would be Shockli 21700 4550mAh for runtime and 30T for output.

Lux-Perpetua
Lux-Perpetua's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 03/01/2018 - 04:39
Posts: 1336
Location: Germany, 德国, ドイツ, Германия, जर्मनी

I like to add that the Sofirn 21700 4.000mAh seems to be quite comparable to the Samsung 40T at a very decent price. Maybe it will be even cheaper on the 11/11 sale. For maximum runtime I recommend the Samsung 50E cell with 5.000mAh.

Dmitriyrus
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 18 hours ago
Joined: 05/09/2014 - 12:56
Posts: 37

thank you very much for the tips.

SKV89
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 12:46
Posts: 2491
Location: US

Agro wrote:

I don’t know where did you get the 30s from. Myself I did a quick calculation based on assumption that turbo time is directly proportional to mass and inversely proportional to number of emitters. As I noted this method has flaws but should arrive in the ballpark of being correct.
I said I suspect they will design turbo to last 30s, which is based on the ROT66. To me the calculations you claim to have made completely don’t make any sense. I don’t see how increasing the the mass in the head by at least 50% will only increase turbo runtime by 3s. If FF really designed Turbo to last only 12.5s as you calculated, that would turn away a good number of purchases. There were plenty of comments laughing at the 10s turbo on the Nitecore TM10K. Also the D4 and PL47 already fill the short blast turbo toy category so it would be a bad business decision to have the E07 turbo last only 12.5s and with probably equally poor sustained output. E.g., the D4 drops to 250lumens at 60s and below 200lumens a bit after and subsequently oscillating around 2xx lumens the whole way (depending whether tail standing or handheld).

Agro wrote:

You’re very wrong. I care about regulation and I care a lot about practicality. But I can live without the former and the latter is precisely the reason why I don’t like adding mass for mere improvement to turbo time.

My use case is to have just a couple of hundred lumens sustained. But I blast turbo to either get a better view of some area or to see farther. Usually 10 seconds is enough. Sometimes it’s not. But those cases are definitely not worth a weight increase.

As I stated earlier, if I had to choose, I prefer more fins over more mass. But preferably and optimally, mass should be added as fins where possible to increase heat dissipation; but to maintain the size of the light it seems not easy to increase fins. However just adding mass alone will extend low and mid power runtimes also, not just turbo as I showed in my posts above. I would much rather the light can handle a decent output for 30 minutes than 15 minutes.

Agro wrote:

“Maintain” means efficiency and heat shedding capabilities. Not weight.
You are restating to me exactly what I already explained in my posts above.
SKV89 wrote:

Unfortunately, added mass doesn’t allow it to shed heat faster. It is useful for maintaining high “steady” output longer.
Adding mass extends steady output runtime and slows temperature gain at all output levels. I normally use my flashlights for 20 minutes or so at a time so if a flashlight like the TC20 can maintain 1,000 lumens for 30 minutes, then I say it can maintain 1,000 lumens for my typical use cases and probably most uses cases.
SKV89
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 12:46
Posts: 2491
Location: US

Right now, the 138g of the E07 is lighter than every single other light of its size class yet it is the most powerful one. Your own post here shows a list of other lights and they are all heavier. I have never heard of anyone complaining about any of those lights are heavy. Adding 40g to the head of this light is hardly noticeable and it will still be lighter than the majority of those less powerful lights in your list. I suspect most potential customers would prefer the very noticeable performance/runtime advantages from this hardly noticeable increase in weight. I already provided information from my own testing in my posts above how much added mass can benefit maintaining steady output and reducing rate of temperature rise.

I bought 4 ROT66, 2 PL47, but I will probably buy only 1 E07 if it is only good for 12.5s turbo, and probably equally poor low-mid level thermal/output performance. However, if the E07 has at least the same output/thermal performance of the D4S and preferably the C8F and TC20, I will probably buy a couple. My friends who use flashlights for work will surely ask me to order some for them if it turns out more than just another D4 toy.

klrman
klrman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 11/07/2016 - 22:44
Posts: 2178
Location: Canada

These lights are so small, why not add 80g of mass instead and make turbo run times acceptable?  It's not as if this light is going to break anyone's hand holding it from being too heavy.  

SKV89
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 12:46
Posts: 2491
Location: US
Dmitriyrus wrote:
Hi guys. I want to buy batteries in advance. What do you advise?

I bought some Sanyo NCR21700A 5000mah Tesla batteries. They perform better than the 50E and 48G. You can read about it here.
http://budgetlightforum.com/node/62761
http://budgetlightforum.com/node/62404

Look at these comparison graphs, it can maintain voltage better than the other cells for the entire duration of the battery capacity.


I bought the Sanyo NCR21700A from “Vapcell Dennis”. The price is so low I will not post it here. Give him a PM on BLF. Also, you might want to order the button top version because the standard version is recessed and will not work with most chargers. The button top version adds some resistance so you don’t get the full 15A continuous rating.

If you want max turbo output, then get the 4000mah VTC6A or 40T. From my testing on the C8F 21700 and TK01 (both not as powerful as this light), I see literally no difference in measured peak turbo output between the VTC6A, 40T, and the 3000mah 30T and even if there is on a light like the E07, it will be hardly noticeable base on my experience testing numerous 18650 high output lights with different cells.

SKV89
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 12:46
Posts: 2491
Location: US
klrman wrote:

These lights are so small, why not add 80g of mass instead and make turbo run times acceptable?  It’s not as if this light is going to break anyone’s hand holding it from being too heavy.  

Weight wise, I think most people will have no problem and it would only cost literally a few pennies more to make. With battery included, it will still be lighter than most lights in that list. Even a Shockli 26650 weighs 96.8g. However, it might not be easy to increase that much mass without increasing size or going with copper and I doubt FF will want to make those kinds of changes. Personally I won’t mind the light being a bit bigger especially if fins can be added or deepened (it’s currently smaller than the D4S in every dimension) but I think many people would want it as compact as possible so adding at least 40g (to the head) would be decent.

Agro
Agro's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 35 sec ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 4155
Location: Ślōnsk

SKV89 wrote:
Agro wrote:

I don’t know where did you get the 30s from. Myself I did a quick calculation based on assumption that turbo time is directly proportional to mass and inversely proportional to number of emitters. As I noted this method has flaws but should arrive in the ballpark of being correct.
I said I suspect they will design turbo to last 30s, which is based on the ROT66. To me the calculations you claim to have made completely don’t make any sense. I don’t see how increasing the the mass in the head by at least 50% will only increase turbo runtime by 3s. If FF really designed Turbo to last only 12.5s as you calculated, that would turn away a good number of purchases. There were plenty of comments laughing at the 10s turbo on the Nitecore TM10K. Also the D4 and PL47 already fill the short blast turbo toy category so it would be a bad business decision to have the E07 turbo last only 12.5s and with probably equally poor sustained output. E.g., the D4 drops to 250lumens at 60s and below 200lumens a bit after and subsequently oscillating around 2xx lumens the whole way (depending whether tail standing or handheld).

I don’t have any data on how is the weight split between the head and the rest, so I assumed that each gram of light affects turbo time the same regardless of where it’s placed. Yes, this is not really correct as I stated before, but I believe that it’s much better than guessing.
BTW, according to TK D4 can sustain ~600 lm, though it indeed falls way below that right after turbo.

SKV89 wrote:
Agro wrote:

You’re very wrong. I care about regulation and I care a lot about practicality. But I can live without the former and the latter is precisely the reason why I don’t like adding mass for mere improvement to turbo time.

My use case is to have just a couple of hundred lumens sustained. But I blast turbo to either get a better view of some area or to see farther. Usually 10 seconds is enough. Sometimes it’s not. But those cases are definitely not worth a weight increase.

As I stated earlier, if I had to choose, I prefer more fins over more mass. But preferably and optimally, mass should be added as fins where possible to increase heat dissipation; but to maintain the size of the light it seems not easy to increase fins. However just adding mass alone will extend low and mid power runtimes also, not just turbo as I showed in my posts above. I would much rather the light can handle a decent output for 30 minutes than 15 minutes.

SKV89 wrote:

Adding mass extends steady output runtime and slows temperature gain at all output levels. I normally use my flashlights for 20 minutes or so at a time so if a flashlight like the TC20 can maintain 1,000 lumens for 30 minutes, then I say it can maintain 1,000 lumens for my typical use cases and probably most uses cases.

I use the word Turbo not to denote the highest mode, but any mode that can’t be thermally sustained. I know this is ambiguous, but I don’t see a better word. Sad
So under my fingers “Turbo” can include middle modes of hot rods. But not low ones.
Not-sustainable modes are the only ones that benefit from higher mass. Their runtime is directly proportional to thermal capacity, which is often closely related to weight (though it doesn’t have to be). Sustainable ones just don’t benefit from that, unless we’re talking about totally marginal stuff like Vf change with temperature during the time before the host is thermally saturated.

I won’t comment on whether 20 minutes is a long use for most users. I don’t know.

SKV89 wrote:
Agro wrote:

“Maintain” means efficiency and heat shedding capabilities. Not weight.
You are restating to me exactly what I already explained in my posts above.

Yes, I think we just agree about that part.

SKV89 wrote:
Right now, the 138g of the E07 is lighter than every single other light of its size class yet it is the most powerful one. Your own post here shows a list of other lights and they are all heavier. I have never heard of anyone complaining about any of those lights are heavy. Adding 40g to the head of this light is hardly noticeable and it will still be lighter than the majority of those less powerful lights in your list. I suspect most potential customers would prefer the very noticeable performance/runtime advantages from this hardly noticeable increase in weight. I already provided information from my own testing in my posts above how much added mass can benefit maintaining steady output and reducing rate of temperature rise.

I bought 4 ROT66, 2 PL47, but I will probably buy only 1 E07 if it is only good for 12.5s turbo, and probably equally poor low-mid level thermal/output performance. However, if the E07 has at least the same output/thermal performance of the D4S and preferably the C8F and TC20, I will probably buy a couple. My friends who use flashlights for work will surely ask me to order some for them if it turns out more than just another D4 toy.


Frankly, I don’t think there’s another light in this class yet. And I listed throwers larger than C8. That’s really not comparable.
Is a 40g increase “hardly noticeable” really? Let’s not talk 140 vd 180g, nobody will use this light w/out cell. It’s 210 vs. 250 grams. Now….is this “hardly noticeable”?
For me definitely not. I believe most would notice that easily. Would they care? I don’t know. I would.
SKV89
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 12:46
Posts: 2491
Location: US

I really don’t see how a D4 can sustain 600 lumens without active cooling. I just tested my D4 XP-L HI using my Texas_Ace lumen sphere calibrated with Maukka calibration lights and here are the results:
0s – 496 lm
4min – 256 lm
8min – 60 lm
12min – 31 lm

I’m not sure how Toykeeper calibrated her lumen measurement device but most lumen readings on BLF and manufacturer’s specs are much higher than ANSI certified lumens. Not sure if she got 600 lumen sustained under active cooling. I also did left it tail standing while waiting for the next measurement point instead of holding it throughout the test so it loses the heat sinking benefit from a human hand. The temperature of the light was pretty warm at each measurement interval. I doubt with a human hand holding it tightly will allow it to maintain anywhere near 600 lumens unless you set the allowable temperature to the max, which is not usable without gloves. Also these runtime measurements are normally conducted without a human hand holding the light. Almost everyone on BLF own a D4 so it can easily be confirmed. All you have to do is set the light to about 500 lumens calibrated with another light rated at 500 lumens (if you don’t have a measurement device) and leave it on the table. 10 minutes later, compare it with a 30 to 100 lumen flashlight and you will see how dim it is.

Regarding your concern about adding weight (210 vs 250 grams), I would say it would be pretty hard to tell which weighs heavier if you were given one light after another. Even if you were holding one in each hand, it is still not going to be immediately obvious. I just tested it comparing lights with similar differences. However, the performance advantage will be far more noticeable as I have described previously from my testing.

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 8 hours ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 2062
Location: United states

SKV89 wrote:
I really don’t see how a D4 can sustain 600 lumens without active cooling. I just tested my D4 XP-L HI using my Texas_Ace lumen sphere calibrated with Maukka calibration lights and here are the results:
0s – 496 lm
4min – 256 lm
8min – 60 lm
12min – 31 lm

I’m not sure how Toykeeper calibrated her lumen measurement device but most lumen readings on BLF and manufacturer’s specs are much higher than ANSI certified lumens. Not sure if she got 600 lumen sustained under active cooling. I also did left it tail standing while waiting for the next measurement point instead of holding it throughout the test so it loses the heat sinking benefit from a human hand. The temperature of the light was pretty warm at each measurement interval. I doubt with a human hand holding it tightly will allow it to maintain anywhere near 600 lumens unless you set the allowable temperature to the max, which is not usable without gloves. Also these runtime measurements are normally conducted without a human hand holding the light. Almost everyone on BLF own a D4 so it can easily be confirmed. All you have to do is set the light to about 500 lumens calibrated with another light rated at 500 lumens (if you don’t have a measurement device) and leave it on the table. 10 minutes later, compare it with a 30 to 100 lumen flashlight and you will see how dim it is.

Regarding your concern about adding weight (210 vs 250 grams), I would say it would be pretty hard to tell which weighs heavier if you were given one light after another. Even if you were holding one in each hand, it is still not going to be immediately obvious. I just tested it comparing lights with similar differences. However, the performance advantage will be far more noticeable as I have described previously from my testing.

Of course it will step down.. all the heat inside the tube will cause the light step down..

Mildlyangryjohnny
Mildlyangryjohnny's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/22/2018 - 01:18
Posts: 85

“Runnnnnnn! Gooooooo! Get to the Coppah!”

Dmitriyrus
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 18 hours ago
Joined: 05/09/2014 - 12:56
Posts: 37

Guys … Another question about batteries …
I prefer a flat top batteries.
Do you think it would be a problem for FireFlaes E07?

SKV89
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 12:46
Posts: 2491
Location: US

Mildlyangryjohnny wrote:
YES! The trj20 thing. Thats what i was thinking. In copper.

A copper version of that thing will likely cost in the thousands. Also copper is relatively soft so not sure if it’s good for deep fins although those fins appear pretty thick. But that would be a super sweet light. Can probably handle any realistic output levels until batteries run out. You will need to do some dumbbell training to build up some biceps before you can handle that light though.
Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 8 hours ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 2062
Location: United states

I have a tr j20 with the sst40 dedome.. i break the lense.. lol.. anyone know where i can buy a replacement lense ??

SKV89
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 12:46
Posts: 2491
Location: US

I don’t own one. Was this a VN light? Is it using the stock driver or modified? How many lumens does it make?

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 8 hours ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 2062
Location: United states
SKV89 wrote:
I don’t own one. Was this a VN light? Is it using the stock driver or modified? How many lumens does it make?

It was modded by one blf member.. i believe FET driver.. i will measure lumen tonight.

Mildlyangryjohnny
Mildlyangryjohnny's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/22/2018 - 01:18
Posts: 85
SKV89 wrote:
Mildlyangryjohnny wrote:
YES! The trj20 thing. Thats what i was thinking. In copper.
A copper version of that thing will likely cost in the thousands. Also copper is relatively soft so not sure if it’s good for deep fins although those fins appear pretty thick. But that would be a super sweet light. Can probably handle any realistic output levels until batteries run out. You will need to do some dumbbell training to build up some biceps before you can handle that light though.

Not that exact tr20 thingy— that looks like a ginormous 26650 thrower. But borrow some of the millwork concept, thin fins 1/16(1.6mm) or so thick, spaced the same on a ~1.5+ inch head they couldnt be very deep maybe 3/16”, or so. Yeah, and do it in copper. There was an astrolux i remember seeing a few years back— sc ? Maybe a bit like that form factor wise but slightly deeper on the fin milling. But narrow 1/16” fins and spacing. This, as opposed to the e07 cad drawing with 3 fins at approx 3/16 – 1/4” thick.

I dont find that copper unless annealed is softer than say 6xxx alloy aluminum. But it is pretty close. I handrout alot of aluminum and even the 6xxx series alloys ‘melt’ and gum up the bits unless you use a s#!tload of wax. I cant say that brass or copper do the same, mainly because theyre harder or perhaps denser, the harder non-ferrous materials seem to cut better for some reason, i dont know exactly why—my guess is that the softer it is the more a cutter will grab and pull on clearance of chip versus, slicing or chopping a chunk of chip and eject it, call it just some kind of practical jnstinct. For instance the 3xxx series aluminum (almost pure) just cant be milled by hand because it is so soft it clogs up cutters instantly. The cncs we use have a helluva time with anything other than 6061 because the mg makes it harder. 3xxx (pure/soft) even with tons of lube just makes it look like a plasma cutter did it.

Anyway, moot point. Probably too expensive like you say.

But it would be a pretty sweet light.

Pages