yup that's what i told them, they just brought up the other type of copper because its easy to machine , cant wait till these are done :)
I really like the feel of a light with some heft to it. Copper adds a weight that makes a light feel substantial and I like that. I know a lot of people are all about how light-weight a light is, but I am the opposite of that and enjoy the heft, the solid feel. My all copper Cypreus from Sinner is a little chunk of a light and I love it for that!
The Quad has that kind of feel to it, even with 6061 aluminum used. The light just feels solid, reliable, a thumper (well, if it were bigger!) I alternate EDC between my Quad and Triple X6 lights and it’s difficult to say which is my favorite. I think I like the look of the triple, but the weight and style of the quad has a merit of it’s own that is undeniable. I polished the top face of my quad (ok, I pretty much polished the entire thing) and that mirror finished ring around the optic inside the black host is pretty cool. An anodized color would be a neat customization as well. I guess a printed color wheel could be inserted that would give the same appearance as it would be under the glass lens. It could then be changed out fairly easily. The trit idea is also cool. 
Gonna have to look into that, what are trits…$5-7 each? Need to look up the trit guy at marketplace…
I’ve even got the curing light for Norland now! 
Trits are $7.50 ea for 1.5mm x 5mm, so 7 around the optics would be $55.50 shipped. Would look awesome, but would throw budget right out the window!
Copper Quad, tritted, man, so tempting!
Edit: Might have to look into the bigger vials, fewer of em. Being as how I’m more of a big trit kind of guy…
FWIW I think you two (and others probably) are confusing “doing it right” with something else. DBCstm specifies that this should be a secure press fit. That gives a huge amount of contact area; more will not help. (Where’s comfychair when you need’em? ;)) Filling the space below requires [at least one] extra machining operation and the measurements for that space between hosts was called into question. (The measurements things seems to be an non-issue though.)
It’s simply a matter of paying (slightly?) more for something which achieves nothing. Nitro could also have a pair of little nubs machined onto the very bottom to fit into the stock wire holes. They wouldn’t help with anything and they’d cost extra, so he doesn’t. The same thing applies to this slightly larger nub IMO.
From my perspective eliminating that operation significantly reduces the complexity of this manufacturing job. I’m not sure what the optimal way to build these is, but with my suggestion you’ve got to turn the diameter, center-drill the workpiece, and do two facing operations. I suppose that the actual order of operations is something like:
- Turn down a solid rod of bar stock to the correct diameter, unchuck.
- Cut the entire rod up on a chopsaw.
- Center drill one piece.
- Face the piece, unchuck.
- Face the other side.
- repeat for 49x more pieces or whatever.
If you include a bottom-post then you’ve got to do another turning operation and facing operation somewhere in between step 3 and step 6, so two more operations - all with tight tolerances. When it comes to what must be done to each piece after the initial turning operation, we are talking about a 66% increase in the number of operations (from 3 to 5). I’m not in that business, I don’t know if tool changes are involved or what, but it seems significant to me.
While we’re on the subject of “doing it right” adding another thermal interface for the quad is not going to help the quad’s already-poor performance. I’d want a solid spacer for the quad if I was doing one in the X6 (I’m not). In this case there’s significant extra mass to be had from the ‘wrap around’ heatsink… but again we’re talking about a pretty pricey heatsink for what already appears to be a lackluster performer….
got a quote for 1.375" diameter in 48" piece for $270 not bad for C110 copper, going to contact the machinist and see if he would do it in C110 instead of 145 copper fingers crossed
1.25” has to be turned down slightly to fit into the X6 head. The triple is only .30” tall, so anything larger than 1.25” copper or aluminum for the triple is wasted material and wasted time spent removing it.
Dale that was my first size i was going with, its very close to the size needed and might take 1 pass on the lathe to get the correct OD but how well would the finish be ? have to ask i did not handle much copper when i had my lathe :(
It should work ok, I figure a thin film of thermal paste will make up for any surface irregularities. One of those deals where a dollop on the finger and wipe it in should suffice. Pressing the sink into the head should push most of the thermal paste out anyway.
I’d be in for a copper triple.
here’s where I read about the speculation of the hosts being a different depth than the BLF Special bodies:
I gather it’s an eyeball measurement and maybe not significant.
Thanks hank i found out that its off by like 1-2mm so im going to keep the design
I don’t understand what you mean.
The base of the BLS SE host is diffrent from the non BLF light, where the star sits its 1-2mm deeper
I understand that the star sits deeper on one light than the other.
- Which one is deeper?
- What are you going to do about it?
The non x6 is 1.5mm the blf se x6 is 2mm so im going to leave the design alone so it will fit the blf se better than the non
In that case I urge you to reconsider my prior suggestion.
Post #78 ? Your talking about ?
I hate to say this, but it’s probably worth checking more than one of each flashlight.
I’d bet there’s some variation.
I understand the BLF light uses a thicker (copper) star, and the stock light uses a thinner aluminum star.
And so on the BLF the body was cut deeper — so the result is, the LED is at the same height relative to the reflector in both cases.
(and do we know about the “Host” light yet?)
But — for lights modded without reflectors, with triple and quad optics — I agree it shouldn’t make a difference.
I think.
Lackluster performer? From the quad? Huh? 4400 lumens in a small light is lackluster? Man, I want to see some of YOUR builds!
The quad I built has XP-G2’s in it because of a few reasons, not the least of which is because that’s what I had 4 of. XP-L’s change the game considerably. Either way, I was asked what I would do to improve the sink I built, and this is what I’d do. Optimized thermal path through close attention to contact surfaces. The absolute most mass obtainable by filling all available space.
A top cell is around $10. The top emitter’s for a quad will cost about $25. If you have a quad board. Why not build the optimum sink to accommodate full bore use of your own driver?
I was really referring to Post #66.