UltraFire AT-01 compact zoomie

UltraFire AT - 01 Zooming LED Pocket Flashlight - BLACK @ GearBest

UltraFire AT-01 LED Flashlight w/ Focus Zoom @ FastTech

Looks like another nice and inexpensive flooder but, any relevant information? Worthwhile mod toy?

Cheers

Guess I’m gonna find out. Just ordered 2 from GB (little cheaper, and includes a “knife”).

Figure even with a crappy emitter and driver, it’ll be easy to mod, just like the ’98. Just hope to B’harni (pbuh!) that it won’t have a hollow pill.

I hate zoomies in general, but when pulled in (widest angle) they make great flooders.

Definitively, well designed zoomies are the best torches to go for a nice night walk; a friend of mine asked me for two inexpensive tools, he likes SK98s. Wow just noticed this one takes 26650s too! FastTech wasn't listing this one as 26650 compatible, damn it.

I wonder what kind of lens and driver diameter does this host uses. Looks quite cool imho.

Cheers ^:)

I have no idea what it takes. The AAA carrier looks like one of those used for cheapie through-hole LED flashlights. An 18650 would flop around in the tube w/o a sleeve, and that carrier would flop around if not made thicker and longer (like included with a F13) if it’d fit a 26650. No sleeves, “rubberbands”, etc., were shown in any of the pix, so Hell if I know what’s the inside diameter or what it takes.

Needs this thingy at the top of the pic

to use AAAs, and “stretch” enough to fit a 26650.

Wellp, if 17mm, 20mm, or 22mm, I’m covered. Will find out, umm, not quite “soon enough”, as with the knives they’re coming unregistered snailmail.

Well, ordered another one. I was going to do an emitter swap to one of the torches (7A3 3000K high-CRI XM-L2), this one seems perfect for a straight simple mod.

Mmm, if I am to gas and dd dedome such 3000K, should I expect an even warmer tint shift?

Cheers ^:)

Another… AT01? SK98?

Yep, that’s why I’m getting the AT01s… :smiley:

Iirr, the biggest changes in tint are on the cooler side (eg, 1A to 3A/3D), but as the CT gets warmer, the change after DDing aren’t as drastic (maybe 7A to 7D?).

Another AT-01 (plus an XM-L2 UF SK98 from FastTech).

If the colour temp variation is more pronounced the cooler the emitter temp is, this means the slight output reduction caused by the de-domeing process is due to some sort of blue spectrum output hampering.

Is the amount of de-domeing total light output loss of a lesser level for warmer tints? If not, this means the dd-ing proccesses are actually damaging the InGaN substrate.

Cheers

If I understand it correctly, the tint-shift and lower total lumens is a result of the new difference in refraction indexes. phosphor → air. vs phosphor → silicone → air.

Without silicone to let more photons “leak out”, blue photons, instead of coming out directly and being added to the blue+yellow mix, go back into the phosphor (internal reflection, like photons travelling down a fiberoptic strand) and stand more of a chance of being converted from blue to yellow and then leak out.

So now more blue photons are getting converted to yellow, and running into more of a phosphor layer. So, more yellow than blue (warmer light) and slightly less of it (why warmer bins are generally less efficient than cooler bins).

Soooooooo…

With an already-warm LED and thicker phosphor layer, you’re starting out with fewer pure-blue photons, so there are now that many fewer photons to begin with which’ll get converted to warm, thus less of a net change. With a cooler LED and thin phosphor layer and more blue photons, more go through this conversion, so more blues are converted to yellows, thus more of a net change.

Plus, only higher-energy (shorter wavelength, bluer) photons get converted to lower-energy (longer wavelength, redder) photons, never the other way around. Blue will convert to yellow, never the other way around.

I probably botched the explanation as I understand it, but hopefully the pieces will start to fit together.

The reason I asked if the amount of de-domeing total light output loss was of a lesser level for warmer tints was aimed to understand if the emitter light output loss was due to overall cripplage (InGaN substrate damage, light output reduction affects equally and proportionally to all emitter tints/temps).

If as you uphold, the dome has an actual impact on the light spectra (dome removal mostly reduces blues?), then this means the total light output loss of de-domed warm tints should be noticeably lesser. If this is not so, then my InGaN substrate damage theory is likely.

Cheers ^:)

Don’t think so, not damage to the substrate, ’though people posted pix of their DDed emitters missing chunks of phosphor and similar damage.

Well, this means phosphor layers are “disturbed” by the de-domeing processes, and the composition of the layer (tint/temp) plays a role (cooler tint layers get a more pronounced disturbance).

Cheers ^:)