I liked the original intention to try and show the work put into it, and it seems as if the best way to reflect that intention is to leave it mostly bare or maybe polished from bare. In another light, the anodization lets you do mechanical lockout by breaking the connection. Here, would this do the same thing regardless of anodization by keeping the inner tube from reaching far enough? If so, I think that would make a good case for leaving it bare or maybe seeing if they can polish it. Of course most but presumably not all of us may be willing to polish it ourselves, so long as it was just to make it shinier and not because of stains. I think it’s too easy to make the clear anodization look cheap, and not all of the prototype versions looked that good, but it might be alright. The seams were different version of the clear process, not accidents, right? I have the gray d4; it’s not bad but it’s not the look this was originally going for. I think bare makes sense.
I don’t understand why there are seams 90° apart.
In the FW3A, current travels through the outer tube, the threads, and the driver retaining ring. Loosening the body from the head does not break the flow of power. However, it does break the connection to the switch, so it can’t be turned on/off when loose.
None of that depends on being anodized. The anodizing is a purely aesthetic feature on the FW3A, and not relevant for physical lockout. Plus, the soft lockout is quicker, only takes one hand, and is probably more effective.
TBH, I don’t know either.
Both prototypes had it, but it’s a lot more noticeable on proto2.
However, I’ve heard that it took Convoy a while to get the clear anodizing right, and even then, it seems to be so thin that it can still conduct electricity sometimes. On my clear C8, I can measure electrical contact between a bunch of different places on the outer surface of the light.
I agree. No need to stretch this out even more.
So you can lock both on and off; which seems fine. Yeah, I thought the anodizing didn’t matter, thanks for confirming. Means that’s not a disadvantage of bare.
Just an FYI: the above only applies to lights that don’t have a PC board that the spring is soldered to. The PCB is isolated from the tail cap and completes the circuit between the negative terminal and the main body by making contact with the unanodized end of the battery tube.
Was referring to emisar d4
Good example. You can see that the PC board isolates the circuit from the tailcap and you could sand off the anodizing and still have lockout.
Here’s a link to a pic from TK’s review. http://toykeeper.net/torches/emisar-d4/full/tailcap-inside.jpg
That ring of copper is what the body touches when you screw it on.
But back to the FW3A, I can’t imagine any of us are too worried about the finish as this will be a “user” rather than a shelf queen. :laughing:
Hmm, yeah it does. I do remember hearing that it was not so with another; maybe there’s some difference in the way the titanium one works, and that’s what I was hearing about. But yeah, I don’t think for a moment this won’t see some wear… might look better to not anodize and just polish scratches out as best as possible; regular anodizing isn’t immune anyway. I could go either way.
Anything except raw/bare.
The tailcap might be able to do lockout by loosening it, but I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s not really meant to be unscrewed. It makes the clip loose, allows the tubes to slide relative to each other, and could still make contact by pushing the button hard enough to pop the rear PCB loose.
So… keep the tail end tightened up unless you’re swapping the button or clip or something. Change the battery at the front end instead.
+1
I think a natural hard anodising would suit the light and keeps the original “raw” idea. Bit like the old Novatac flashlights.
Post #4000!
(At the moment.)
I’m in for 1 if there be a LH351D version.
+2
And as pinkpanda3310 stated, this will also eliminate stretching out this project even further.
That in itself is a win all the way around…… :+1:
…
Honestly, the finish doesn’t matter to me at all. Not a bit, especially if it won’t matter with regard to a physical lock out. (I’d prefer a physical lock out, given the option, by the way). So, I agree, let the designer decide.
My guess is that they crammed the anodising tank too full. Imagine lots of tubes standing in square formation, Current density i.e. ano. thickness varying dependent on how close to each neighbour. Hence “seams” at 90 degrees.
Agreed, that would be perfect, and so durable. But proper thick hard anodising is a slow cold expensive process, I doubt Lumintop would know how, even if the alloy is suitable. It would be nice if they could though, it would lift it into a different class.
Rarely seen on a torch despite claims, the only one I have with it is an Inova X1, but I’ve also seen it on Surefires and I think Zebralight. None of which are $30 torches.
The main thing is no gaudy colours, and no bead-blast please.