So I just saw that Vinh @ Sky lumen has this posted for sale & mods. Vinh has this light listed @ 1.2mcd! And 2190 meters throw, listed as de lensed only. There is no stating any other mod beside de lense and his driver for one option, but he says the performance is the same with his driver and stock driver…
I don’t know Sarge if you have a way of measuring throw with a lux meter? Or if you even care to, but honestly if this light really throws 2190 meters or close to that with just a delense to the led (which we know only adds approximately 5% throw - so maybe 90 meters to claimed 1800m) then I would deal with the stupid batteries, because the head size is really a nice medium between MF02s v2 and k75, but 2190 is really good for the 105mm head size
I hope when someone else gets this they can confirm it throws even within 5% of 2190 meters? Because that is about 21% more throw then the claimed 1800 meters, and would make this light a REALLY great performer. That is the same throw as the mf04 with xhp35, but with a 30mm smaller head! And twice the lumens!
What is de lensed? I have heard of de domed, but this has no dome that I can see. I doubt seriously this light could throw 2190 meters. The reflector is not as deep as the TN42, which is why it only out throws the TN42 by about 300 meters. It is a wider, brighter center spot though, and I think it has more spill. I wish they had just put the same emmitter in the TN42 body. The deeper reflector would likely reach that higher throw with the TN42 reflector. I also have the mf04, and it out throws this light by a good bit…I actually compared them last night. I do not have a lux meter, so can’t measure candella.
Since I modified the light, I do not need the thrunite batteries. It would just be a hassle having to cover the idiotic negative post on them. I can forgive Olight for their similar modification, because at least their added negative on the positive side serves a purpose with their magnetic charger and remote pressure switches. Having to add a plastic insulator in the head to prevent the unnecessary negative post shorting is just idiotic. Thrunite techs…if you read this…don’t add a negative post to batteries that does not have a functional purpose. Maybe you could have used the added savings to have better battery level indicator or smooth ramping.
Interesting….begs the question…protection from what? The led is already enclosed by the glass and reflector and the flashlight body. Seems like manufacturers would themselves remove the lens to increase the performance in such a competitive business. Are there statistics that point to much higher led failure once the lens is removed?
Just like dedoming, there is risk of damage to the extremely delicate die leads.
Any LED failure will come from something falling on or touching the die/leads.
Manufacturers don’t like voiding warranties by modifying parts and increasing the number of failures/defects in the production line.
It would be very dangerous to charge these in a normal charger, since chargers often are made for multiple sizes of cells and the positive terminal is not just a button but rather a rectangle, and if it has raised points it could contact both the positive and negative terminals of the batteries at the same time since they are on the same side, shoring the cell.
Once again, that too is not exactly correct. The high current drain is not the issue requiring protected cells. The fact that these 4 batteries are in parallel with common positive and negative termination points is the issue with unprotected cells. In such a setup, an internal short in any 1 battery would cause the other 3 to overheat badly, perhaps even catch on fire, even with the light off. 4x21700 high drain batteries provide way more current that this led requires. That is not the case with an internal short of 1 battery which effectively completes the circuit with a 0 resistence load. I would not recommend even a 2 cell light having unprotected batteries, but 4 cells might burn someones house down as they sleep. With 1 cell, the protection can be in the lights PCB. I had no issue with protected batteries. The idiotic negative termination point on the positive side serving no purpose, was my issue with the design. As designed that negative only touches an insulator, so there is no reason for it to be there. I was an electrician/mechanical troubleshooter so I know electronics. The only really safe means of protecting 4 cells in the light itself would require 4 seperate termination points to the lights circuits.
Mechanical lockout might avert disaster if using unprotected cells, because in truth, during use an internal short of the battery would make the light too hot to hold before venting. In that case, you could then unscrew the head or toss the light a safe distance away. I know in my case, I would at some point forget. Now I should stress that only an internal short of a battery would cause such an issue, and that is admittedly a fairly rare event, so chances are better than not, it would not happen. The potential is there however. It is sort of like failing to change batteries in a smoke alarm, most would get away with that, but such oversite can, and has cost lives. In both cases, it is not worth the risk to life or losing your house, IMO.
Probably the case, there may very well be other Thrunite lights that actuallly use the negative post on the positive side. Using them in this light made them very proprietary, whether that was their intent or not. The removal of the insulator, and adding 20 cents worth of insulator to the batteries fixed the issue, so not a big deal for someone who is aware of the issue, and knows about the fix. I don’t really like how close those negative screws are to the positive ring, but my fluke meter indicates that it is not touching, showing high mega-ohms resistence, so it is safe, in spite of how close it looks. It was close enough for me to check that prior to putting the batteries in.
The original TN42 has always been one of the lights that I always wanted to have but couldn’t justify the expense. From what others said it was a good host with a good reflector and it was very lightweight considering its capabilities.
4x21700….thanks but no thanks. 4x18650 is as thick as I’m willing to handle and even that is too large for comfort.
Which is why my BLFQ8 and Sofirn Q8 both have protected cells in them. I do not care what they ship with, if it has 4 cells with common termination points it gets protected batteries period. My Nitecore TM16GT has 4 unprotected cells, but also has 4 seperate termination points and the protection is built into the light. What was hard to understand about my statement that any such designed light needs protected cells.