Astrolux MF03 - new pictures + video

Rather see 3-XHP70’s with 3 big deep reflectors at 8-9000lm Turbo like a huge BTU shocker and 5-70’s at 8-9000lms Turbo like a Ace beam X60. Not one for mixed emitter, multi-emitter lights. Rather have them all the same, but this is still very interesting… :+1:

Which is a shame. You’d think some manufacturers would take notice after the Q8’s positive reception.

Take a look on current >100W lights like X80, MF01, they are barely bigger than a Q8 and handle the heat for more than a minute

The MF03 compared to them has a huge head and also way more surface to loose some of the heat, that will increase sustained output

I agree. It doesn’t really make sense to have such a bottleneck directly under the heat source even though that (hopefully) thick tube is large. Trying to funnel 100% of the heat into 50% of the heat conducting area isn’t ideal.

Still looks like a very cool light though. Interested to see more details.

I’m sure that with its clunky build it will do much better than those tiny monsters, but with my simple suggested correction in the design that hardly costs extra (if any) I’m pretty sure it will still perform noticably better.

djozz, is it you are suggesting to have more thermal mass under leds mcpcb seating by reducing the length of fin? Those deep section of fin don’t have much airflow anyway, might as well make the fins shallower?

It is not the thermal mass I want it for (although it does add a bit that will help lengthening the turbotime somewhat just because of that), but I want it for a large enough cross-section to help the heat getting through to the rest of the body of the flashlight.

(and with 200W power the fins are mostly cosmetic, they will do a certain job at lower powers)

wolfdog1226. Are you four?

See what led up to my comments before you judge me….then mind your own business. :wink:

And what will this “little darling” be powered with? Driver and batteries is the next question. I do like my 20700’s, I just got a few for $7.91 each from a U.S.A. store.

Awesome !

You know they can’t push them that hard due to the poor efficiency.

The Imalent DX80 does 8 x 70.2 at 4,000 lumen each which is about 5A (6v). That’s about 32,000 lumen at 40 amps.

If this light had 8 x 70.2 at 8,500 lumen each that’s about 16A. Which is about 68,000 lumen at 128 amps.

You get double the output, but triple the power consumption.

Would we need to triple the batteries? Load it with 24 18650 cells? 6S4P.

The Imalent draws maybe 10A per cell on 8 cells.

This light would draw 32A per cell on 8 cells. So you’d need to at least run 16 cells to get it down to a more manageable 16A per cell. So at least 16 18650 cells. That’s a long battery tube.

I haven’t even mentioned the heat. You’d probably be triple at over 750 watts.

These are the reasons we are not seeing manufacturers push things so hard. The light would be so big and bulky and expensive to produce. It would not be practical at all and would therefore not sell well.

Kawiboy, I’m sure you know all this already, but I wanted to explain to all the newer folks the major hurdles involved.

^ Good information. The 5000 lumen Q8 is one of the harder driven lights stock but thanks to the non-bypassed springs the leds are not in the really inefficient region (they are with bypasses!). And the body size of the Q8 is quite in balance with the leds/currents, unlike i.e. the Acebeam with 25,000 lumen in a comparable package, that needs ultrafast stepdown (but is still IMO the coolest light around).

I get your idea. Highway for the heat to transfer to flashlight body and surrounding, not just adding thermal mass.

JasonWW, I think KawiBoy said he rather see 3*XHP70.2, not 7*XHP70.2.

But I prefer they drive the LED at the maximum spec to have better efficiency. Or maybe 125% of maximum spec, for example from 4A to 5A in Turbo.

This light in stock form must surpass any old flashlight out there except DX80(it is not old by the way). Else it will not gain much interest due to its big size. So I think two options below will be very good options:

1.30000 lumens, 250kcd, for at least 5 minutes
2.16000 lumens, 600kcd, for at least 10 minutes

Can we have a vote? Lol
I vote option 1
For a light that big, it needs the massive lumens to justify its size. And 250kcd is no slouch, should be able to see things at good enough distance.
If I need to see things further, I’ll take out the smaller tn42 or even smaller olight m3xs.

I was thinking no vote needed. If all are 12V leds, then we just pick our option for 7*XHP70.2+1*XHP35 HI or 8*XHP35 HI or buy both.

He was actually suggesting 8 x 70.2. 3 with a deep reflector and 5 with a shallow reflector. I used 7 in my example so it would compare better to the Imalent light.

I see. Now I got it.

I think giorgoskok already mentioned it would be about 30k lumen. Or someone did, I’m not sure now.

I seriously don’t think we have any say in this companies business. Maybe freeme can suggest software changes to make the modes better spaced, but that’s about it. This isn’t a BLF designed light.

About the 2 options you posted, are those realistic?

I think the DX80 can do turbo for 5 minutes (?) and is about 30,000 lumen. Does anyone know what it’s candela is? Is it close to 250kcd?

How would you get 16,000 lumen and 600kcd? 8 xhp35 at 2k lumen each and shallow little reflectors? Would that actually produce that distance?