FREEME ✌ ASTROLUX® MF01X 18*SFQ43 LEDs 21000lm 3*21700 USB-C Flashlight Group Buy - ALIVE frm $105

I remember early-on people were not understanding the cooling fins design and we’re even wondering if they were designed for a fandle or something. Adding the drilled holes was a definite upgrade. It allows more air inside to cool the fins and ultimately gets heat away from the center. If the holes weren’t there, air wouldn’t reach the lights core as easily and heat wouldn’t have as quick an exit. This is exactly the same design the Nightwatch Stalker used for their SBT90 thrower and that thing has great heat dispersion.

I forgot about this concern people were sharing until I saw you mention it again. I was def happy to see them add the holes, will definitely help air flow and cooling. I’m really excited for this light.m, I just hope they don’t go crazy on the price.

Me, page 2, 3 and 4
I’ve Nightwatch Stalker SBT 90.2 , its real cool fine with drilled hole, assisst cooling with basic physic, reduce air flow resitance inside the cooling fin.
The Astrolux light have, visibly, closed section, no coolling fine near “honeycomb”, 3 section of 5 cells seem be not connected to each other.

For machining use to create this, it’s for me better make only cooling fine.
This design is, for me, only for brainf**k rewiewer on her stable and static test, not for customer on night…

I exclude cooling with fan, too variable, and we’ll always find someone to say it’s normal because it’s powerful and it heats up :frowning: I say only for static test with no fan which could give good results unfortunately that will not reproduce it outside the test in normal use, it could be much worse and give an equivalent result to a light flat with no cooling fine except that this will not be seen in the tests, on the contrary, hence the brainf**k the results will be false, it is up to us not to believe in the miracle of a model that breach physical rules.

But I always remain open if someone can explain to me how a closed design conducive to increase the resistance of the airflow can have a higher efficiency for us on disturbed and dynamic area.

Self quote:
“100+ years of evolution for engine cooldown by air.
One basic physical principle, the air must meet the least possible resistance on the greatest possible contact surface.
So heat sink “classical”, no other way.”

I see, Thank you. It appears I misunderstood what you were saying the problem was.

I know you are doing your best to relay what you mean, I was honestly just not understanding for some reason. But looking back, you were clear enough at some points where I definitely should have picked up on what you meant, so my apologies. And thank you for responding and re-explaining the issue again for me. I finally understand exactly what you’ve been saying all along (I think).

I understood you were saying you didn’t like the effect the holes would provide. But I missed the part about the why you didn’t like it, but now I completely agree with you. I had to look at my Stalker to see and confirm what you meant, but I saw it instantly as soon as I picked it up.

So the issue isn’t that they used holes, the holes on their own help. The issue is that they enclosed the fins into 3 separate columns of 5 fins, or cells as you called them. And now that totally makes perfect sense. You were saying that they took a perfectly proven design where air can flow easy, and then restricted it. And what you mean is that the holes are probably not enough to make up for the lack of airflow that they have created with this design. I think you are likely right about that too.

It looks like they did know that this design was not the best for airflow, exactly for the reasons you said. That’s also likely the exact reason why they decided to try and compensate for this “bad” design by adding the holes.

So basically, they decided that they liked this design far too much. They figured that if they put the usual free-flowing fins, this light would lose the futuristic look that it has. So they made a calculated compromise to keep it.

I honestly am really loving this design, and I agree with them that they should just leave it as it to preserve the design because that’s part of what makes it look so cool.

Now, I think a buck driver PLUS the drilled holes would have been a FAR better compromise to go along with this design. I don’t know what kind of driver it has yet, but I hope it’s some thing good. Unless this thing gets too expensive, I’m still pretty excited since it’s such a great looking light and will probably still be fun.

But again, I thank you for sticking with it and helping me understand. I 100 percent see your point now and couldn’t agree more, it makes perfect sense.

Interested

:slight_smile: happy you understand

Explain different for fun.

We need to interest fluid mechanics.
Air is a fluid as a liquid has the difference that it is compressible.

The hole on open design fin can improve airflow because they offer “different” way for airflow to escape, other way to escape = less pressure inside fine = better circulation = better exchange = heat exchanging = better performance.

Close hole = more pressure inside fine, a fluid take always lesser resistance way (example the meanders of a river) in this case the airflow don’t make meanders but slide around the light.
So close hole don’t stop all airflow it’s not open/ close circuit :smiley: but the over pressure creaet by close hole make a resistance and X % off the air flow was reduce= less performance.

In the case of Astrolux you can see:

In accordance with fluid mechanics you can easily see the enter is very very very more massiv compare to the exit and therefore to exit through this small hole compared to the large entrance it will be necessary to exert pressure.
Fluid take the more easy way, for once, he’s really just gonna slide around the light :D.
Air flow can’t get out the fine, to much pressur needed for get out by hole so air enter in fine and not able to get out meets a resistance = up pressure = air flow outside don’t enter inside fine and slide around the fine= no or very bad air flow = very low performance.

compartmentalized makes no sense, only make more and more resistance, juste fine with hole ok but the 3 compartiment is just no sens
No sens expect if you try get physical effect explain before the chimney effect.
But this effect only work in other air flow.

Only in static environement, from the moment you move a minimum or just with a bit of air, you go to this airflow pattern

So :weary:
But guy in test on room can get that pattern

An adage says that one must beware of engineers who are able to have brilliant ideas for bad purposes.

A light must not be aesthetic in first case it is subjected to heat which must be evacuated in accordance with the mechanics.
For aestetic reason they do this horror, I say machining to creat this compartiment is probably high and expensive (more only simple fine and for disater efficiency) and for hide the disaster they make that only for pass the test…

Have can make the connection with the complexity of the current engine that was designed only for the sole purpose of passing a test and not to be efficient in real condition.
Probably customer can think they have good heat exchange product, for me no for few reason and the first this light is a design light and not efficiency light.
My connection to the 100 year of engin air cooled is for illustrate, no other option, more you complicate the design more you complicate the air flow système more you gain performe in close pattern but you less performance and the other and major pattern.

So for this light good perform on static air flow bad on dynamic, and for me we use light in majority on dynamic environnement.

I understand you like design, I like to beautiful light, but if you want efficiency not Thousand design available :frowning:
It’s just my point of wiew (and I don’t have material to confirm clearly that :p) for me a light is a tool above all.
I don’t tell this light is bad, I say they can be so better if they to thermal design and not beautiful design.
But if I read tests that have been measured on a static basis who claim this light have exeptional perform and if they drop quickly and finish quickly at ridicoulus low output it’s only because she is powerfull and generate massive heat.
I would be opposed to
No light of this tall can sustain 15.000 lumens it’s not my word, I just wan’t explain this light can be better and probably do lesser than the MF01S even more if have compared to the care to bring to the design to the detriment of the efficiency as a proportion of costs.
And in this case I can’t talk about evolution, except tariff :stuck_out_tongue:
XXX $ (three number for the cost on first post…) compare to the XX of MF01S for low efficiency… After if the people buy, hope they are enjoy with it and i’m enjoy for them :slight_smile:

Edit:
Chimney effect is my little personal pleasure in the hope that it did not only do this for design or simply pile up principles that are not applicable to this design :blush:

What’s the size of it??? Did I miss it? It’s one of the most important parameters for me…

129.6mm length x 72mm head diameter, 53,8mm battery cap diameter.
446gr weight (without batteries).

Also interested!

Love the USB-C but I hope it comes with a buck driver.

Interested

Any options in cct?

Probably 5700K

Mateminco:

High-efficiency and stable drive circuit (dual high-power MOS), direct + low-current constant-current drive, low-power constant current, high-power maximum energy efficiency output, to ensure that every energy can be effectively used.

I asked them what type of driver it is and they just gave me the same answer again. If it is actually a high efficiency driver that would make it very good value at this price point.

Wouldn’t be the first time a linear driver was called a high efficiency driver by a flashlight vendor. I personally think that if a switch mode driver was used, they’d boast about it in the listing. Same story with CRI, if it’s not listed, it’s likely bad.

Sounds like a linear driver sigh…

i asked Neal, likely only 6500k. I'm out. Trying to grab the old one while it's still in stock.

It seems official now that is using the Chinese SFQ43 LEDs. I don’t want to spend well over $100 on a light to have it come with a bunch of knock off Chinese LEDs.

That would be a tragedy! :person_facepalming:

Actually these new Chinese LEDs are pretty stellar performance wise. Someone wrote this,
I just bought a Mateminco MT35 Mini with SFS80 and tested it. I measured 7.2A from the tailcap. The light has 116k candela and 2148 lumens so it is very close to a SFT40. In fact, it seems to perform better than the SFT40 lights that I have. The beam is pure white and even has a slight rosy tint. I like the beam better than my C8 with a W2 emitter since it is very even. The W2 is somewhat lopsided.

The biggest problem I have is the 6500k cct, which means I won’t buy it. With the old MF01, they had 4000k 90CRI option. If they can source some rosy tinted 4000k 90CRI from these chinese LED manufacturer, I will buy several of these flashlights.

“i asked Neal, likely only 6500k. I’m out. Trying to grab the old one while it’s still in stock. ”

:cry:

then I’m out too.