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.
What is the cost on the quad sink? $10? How much do you think a machinist would knock off for NOT performing that one operation? $1?
I won’t bother to check your math cause you’re pretty dang brilliant, but if I can add 1250 sq. millimeter to 1900, then by gosh I’m all for it!
That vertical area that you are referring to is under the threads of the bezel. I’ve always been told that a lot of thermal path is lost in threaded sections. So perhaps depending on that section almost exclusively for your thermal path is not the best of ideas? Do you have an X6 in hand? Look at it. The head of the light, the part where the emitter sits normally, the part in question on the sink, that’s right at the finned portion of the outside that is contiguous with the emitter shelf, a solid one piece milled head. The area above that is threaded, sits under the bezel. See?
Mine was built from a single bar of 1.25” diameter 6061. I bought that for making a triple sink. So it doesn’t touch metal above the head of the light. This makes that emitter shelf a vital area. Adding contact to that, under the bezel or not, can only help. But the vital part is still the emitter shelf. The heat travels into the metal in much the same conical radiance pattern that the light leaves the emitter. I like having deep thermal sink directly under the source to catch it.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m not so tight I can’t part with a dollar.
- I disagree with the first part. The whole point of having that 20x2mm protrusion on the bottom is to create a good thermal interface on that round 20mm face. Once the average user sands it down it’s just not going to be flat enough for that. That’s a big part of why a lathe is employed here in the first place…
- The second part makes it clear that I haven’t adequately demonstrated my point, despite writing volumes upon volumes.
I brought up the pins specifically as something that was unnecessary and should not be included. Just like the 20mm protrusion is unnecessary….
The issue is that: 1. I’m stubborn. 2. I have a valid suggestion which improves compatibility and reduces cost with what I strongly suspect will be zero performance penalty. 3. Either nobody cares or nobody understands, or both. What can you do, eh? <shrug>