The issue is the twisting action will move the led to different focal points in the parabolic reflector. This will cause all sorts of artifacts to show in the beam. Everyone remembers their old maglites and the various focusing beam patterns. I really hate those patterns.
There are a few solutions if Sofirn wants to use a parabolic reflector and address the beam pattern issue:
diffuse lens
really orange peal reflector
smooth reflector with a flat white paint to diffuse.
A 5 mm magnet does indeed fit (just). I rechecked the dimensions with the help of a drawing. A 5 x 3 mm magnet should most definitely be strong enough.
Some notes on my drawing:
I've been cautious and used 14 mm diameter, if it is actually 14,3 mm all the better.
The magnet circle is a touch too far to the left (to the outside).
The trit slot is probably a bit too big.
The split ring is the same size you'll find on medium sized Swiss Army knives.
The total height of all this is 3 mm, the hole is 2 mm plus 1 mm of material on top of that (this is the same as on an Olight i3E, the central lug of that has a total height of 3 mm and a 2 mm hole). Or in other words: non of this adds length to the light, the 3 mm are needed either way.
There is a slight concern that there might not be enough material left either side of the 5 mm magnet, but I'm sure Sofirn is able to figure out if that is the case or not (not forgetting the chamfered edges of course).
I just realize that this light must be a 3 piece host in order to accommodate a removable magnet. I hope sofirn can test the structural integrity of the tailcap since we wanted a robust flashlight.
I think it is best if the light does not come with a pre-installed magnet (to make the most amount of people happy).
There are two sensible options:
A: The light does not come with a magnet at all (but with a cavity for one). If the user wants a magnet they need to buy and install one themselves (same as with the trit).
B: The light does come with a magnet, but the magnet is not pre-installed into the light. If the user wants a magnet they just need to install the one that is in the package.
I prefer option B, because it is easier for the user.
No one is even bringing up a permanent magnet. The removable magnet is optional.
We are just brainstorming a tail cap to accommodate the requested features.
I believe the biggest priorities are cost and robustness.
Magnet cavity, tritium slot, centering ring hole and etc are secondary.
However, if we can incorporate many of the requested secondary features in the design, then why not?
If you don’t want the magnet, then leave it in the bag and don’t install it.
I have to say, I really like the tailcap design that Djozz and Noir are converging on. Definitely a step up from any other AAA tailcap I’ve seen :+1:
I think it would be a good design for a 1×AA light as well. The only potential snag there is whether the magnet would still be strong enough, even with the opportunity to scale it up to (I presume) 7×3mm in the larger tailcap.
This is a drawing that I sent to Barry. The white area is machined out 3mm lower, which should be possible in one machining pass with a 3mm cutting tool. The central 2mm hole should easily fit a 10mm inner diameter split ring (the circle in pencil is 9mm).
It shows the position of a possible magnet hole and a possible trit hole and I told him that discussion was still going on but that in the end Sofirn decides on which holes to add or not.
Looks good, except for those 3 mm half circles to the right, they are a bit odd and unnecessary (and make chamfering all the edges more difficult). You have the drill for the hole going through anyway plus you could tilt the tool 90° and remove the 3 mm quarter circles in front of the hole if you don't want them. Or Sofirn could use a 2 mm tool for everything (except maybe the trit slot) to save one tool change. Or...
To be honest I don't think it is worth discussing the machining details, because Sofirn needs to figure this out by themselves. We don't know how they like to do things, what machines with which capabilities they have and so on.
Yes, Sofirn is perfectly capable of figuring out the machining details themselves, it is just that Barry, after seeing the discussion, somewhat grumpy said that simple was preferred, so I had to show that clever solutions could simple too.
I was a bit worried about if the 2mm thick 3mm long hole would indeed easily fit the 10mm split ring that I have, so I cut a 2mm hole in a 3mm thick small piece of aluminium and checked. Well, it does fit and moves easily in the hole, but there is actually hardly room to spare :innocent:
This light is basically an upgraded clone of the beloved Fenix E01, which only uses 1 5mm LED and for what the philosophy of the E01 and this light is, yes, it is enough.
A triple setup totally defeats the purpose of a light like this. If you want something with that kind of output, it’d be best to get something with a high cri Nichia.
Smart phone lights have come a long way over the years as far as output goes and the chances are a lot of them will be higher in lumens than this light. Cell phone lights are all flood though and lux can be just as important as lumens. No idea where these lights will stand on that point though.
This kind of light is the kind of light you never have to worry about working or using too much. In an emergency, do you really want to burn your phone’s battery to see?
This light is a task light, used to light up things in your immediate area and it will be bright enough for that.
Question 1: The current breakdown goes 2 for trit slot being a must have, 4 that want one but isn’t necessary, 10 don’t care, 6 no, and 4 definitely no. So as of current standings people prefer not having a trit slot.
Question 2: Tailstanding is vital. No respondents said their ideal tailcap wouldn’t tailstand, and only 1 deemed it not important. The majority of respondents (14) said it was vital.
Question 3: 13 yes vs 10 no on the magnet. This is very much a split decision.
Question 4: The Olight i3s tailcap is currently in the lead, followed closely by the Lumintop Ant and Manker E02. The others are pretty far behind.
Question 5: At least one person really wants it to just be an E01 like light due to the proven design. The Maratac Peanut tailcap was mentioned, and there was a clear vote for the Noir/Djozz tailcap design. Also someone reiterated that tailstanding is important.
Based on the data so far I think the Noir/Djozz design is a good idea assuming:
- It can be made within the cost target.
- It does not come with the trit/magnet installed.
- Tailstanding proves stable
The body design can still be made in two pieces similar to the E01
Edit: @mdeni: The light output from these (based on my experience with an E01vn) is a bit lower than a cell phone light but with better quality. The cell phone light vs keychain debate has been going on for a long time now. Most enthusiasts or EDC types prefer to carry a dedicated light to reduce cell phone battery usage and for the convenience that using a small dedicated device affords vs a large slab of expensive electronics.
It’s looking like we might just need to drop the magnet idea, unfortunately. Either that, or screw those who don’t want one. I don’t want an empty magnet hole on the outside of the tail of the light. First of all, it won’t really look good (empty). Second, unless Sofirn provide the magnet AND a secure (and easy) way to install the magnet, it will be useless to even those who want the magnet in the tail. Very few BLFers are modders at all. Even fewer have UV activated glue and a UV light. Two part epoxy doesn’t stick well to the Nickel coating that most Neodymium magnets have. What else is there? I don’t know.