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. 
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.
If it were 0.5mm too long, the head wouldn’t screw on quite all the way. Half a millimeter.
I don’t have a light in hand to measure, but I simply can’t see where you two are coming from. Exactly how is that area critical? Is the large, 31.7mm wide shelf not also directly connected to the fins?
- That larger shelf surface alone provides 1900 square millimeters of contact area by itself. The 20mm shelf provides only 1250 square mm of contact area.
- The outer surface of the 31.7mm cylinder provides 1110 square mm of contact area. The outer surface of the short 20mm cylinder provides 250 square mm of contact area.
In other words the top section provides 3010 square mm of contact area, which is quite a large amount. [More than Old Lumens uses on his current MT-G2 Maglite heatsinks IIRC?] The bottom protrusion provides an additional 1500 square mm… and causes a potential fitment issue!!
This is exactly what I’m talking about! This is where that extra protrusion on the bottom seems like a problem: it provides little benefit that I can see, increases cost, and appears to cause a fitment issue.
I am not sure what the issue is. If the X6-SE indeed does have a lower emitter shelf than that if a stock X6 and the difference is is only (.5) mm that that would equal 0.019685 inches and could easily and quickly be sanded down with a flat surface and some 80 grit sandpaper - aluminum or copper.
On a different note...Dowel/alignment pins should also be unnecessary and just create a manufacturing expense.