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 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.
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?
The problem with that Wight is that if indeed the original stock emitter shelf is 1.5mm then a copper star will fill the gap. But if the new one is 2mm, a star won’t fill the gap under the sink. For ease of use to accommodate those that aren’t fully modders, that 2mm on the end can be fairly crucial, it’s the direct link to the fins on the outside. A .5mm gap would be detrimental to the entire process, kind of like only one small mouse turd in your coffee…it’s not much f’d up but still f’d up.
I would love to have more non blf lights measured but i only have one on hand and only one member posted in my other thread asking for help ?? And if it don't fit perfectly more copper is better than less
^ Yup, I don’t have the equipment to mill it or work metal where I am, that’s why I’d want to buy one. So if it didn’t fit, I wouldn’t want to buy in the first place, if the question of it fitting was not guaranteed or at least returnable.
