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
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 itās probably worth checking more than one of each flashlight.
Iād bet thereās 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 ā so the result is, the LED is at the same height relative to the reflector in both cases.
(and do we know about the āHostā light yet?)
But ā for lights modded without reflectors, with triple and quad optics ā I agree it shouldnāt 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-G2ās in it because of a few reasons, not the least of which is because thatās what I had 4 of. XP-Lās change the game considerably. Either way, I was asked what I would do to improve the sink I built, and this is what Iād 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 emitterās 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 wonāt fill the gap under the sink. For ease of use to accommodate those that arenāt fully modders, that 2mm on the end can be fairly crucial, itās 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 coffeeā¦itās not much fād up but still fād 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 donāt have the equipment to mill it or work metal where I am, thatās why Iād want to buy one. So if it didnāt fit, I wouldnāt 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 wouldnāt screw on quite all the way. Half a millimeter.
I donāt have a light in hand to measure, but I simply canāt 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?
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 mmā¦ and causes a potential fitment issue!!
This is exactly what Iām 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 wonāt bother to check your math cause youāre pretty dang brilliant, but if I can add 1250 sq. millimeter to 1900, then by gosh Iām all for it!
That vertical area that you are referring to is under the threads of the bezel. Iāve 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, thatās 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 1.25ā diameter 6061. I bought that for making a triple sink. So it doesnāt 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 Iām wrong. Maybe Iām not so tight I canāt part with a dollar.
The issue is that: 1. Iām 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>
Will all see when the sample is test fitted , under $20 for a copper custom heatsink is a darn good price i think
Clearly miscommunication on my part.
I do agree with the protrusion to reach the emitter shelf. almost seems silly not to have. I just wonder the actual need to machine at 1.5mm or 2.0mm depth. I can take off an excess but I cannot add for a shortage. Even without precision tooling the shelves I have seen are not all that perfect anyway so a dab of paste after machining or sanding would not worry me. Hand lapping is performed on custom PC's everyday and they achieve good thermal transfer.
In reality, especially with the quad adapter the added cubes alone will more than help with heat dissipation.
Dowels? Well my Dremel will take care of those pesky things. LOL
I do not have one in hand. Iāve been waiting for the host since I wasnāt interested in the BLF Edition driver or stock single LED config. (and now Iām scratching my head since I may as well purchase a complete light w/ the host being a bit pricey)
What if you could add 5000? What about 10000? Would it do anything?
As far as shaving a buck offā¦ thatās a matter of strategy. If you come back to the same machinist with the proposed change and heās a normal sort of person then I would not expect much of a discountā¦ [After all, if heās marking up all his work then the more work he does for you the more money he makesā¦ in order to maintain the same profit heās already set his sights on for the job heās got to mark up a lesser quantity of work to a larger extent] If you reset the encounter to one where you are asking a fresh, untainted individual to produce a stack of 5.7mm thick disks w/ two clean faces, a specific precise diameter, and a center drillā¦ then I think youād be getting somewhere. (based on the reasoning I posted back in post #78ā¦ weāre actually talking about a lot less work IMO.)
[realizing that Iām not actually a machinist] Iād expect to get around 15-20% more heatsinks out of a copper bar based on the 3 sections: 5.7mm top section, 2mm protrusion, 1/8in for whatās wasted by a saw or parting tool.
Between the copper savings and reducing the number of operations Iād expect to reduce cost significantly, not just $1.
I could be wrong about the whole thing. Iām certainly not going to build two lights and send them off to have somebody stick them in a sphere and compare, so maybe itās best I let the subject drop.
Where would be the fastest place to buy a non blf x6 ???
His hosts arenāt complete for some reason beyond American understanding, but it could be assembled with parts on hand. For example, the lens is available through various sources, I have several taken out of previous X6ās and replaced with UCLp versions. The switch has already been linked, o-rings can easily be found.
If Richard wanted to or had time to, he could measure 75 lights for you.
I would re-measure mine, but itās sitting under a hard earned quad heatsink and Iām not feeling like taking it apart.
Ugh. Sigh sigh sigh! OK: When you hand lap a CPU and a heatsink, letās assume you lap them against either each other OR against a ātrue flatā surface. Whatever, in our hypothetical scenario they mate perfectly afterwards, right? Great. What doesnāt matter in that case is that the CPUās top surface (top of the IHS / lid) is no longer square with the sides. [Because youāve been lapping it freehand of course, you donāt have a machine which can keep your grip perfect enough!] Why doesnāt it matter you ask? Well, weāre clamping another flat surface across it with springs [the heatsink w/ itās retention bracket], so that other surface will simply tilt until it mates correctly with the perfectly-flat-but-no-longer-square-with-anything IHS!
Now think about what happens when you place a rod (the heatsink is a stubby rod) into an empty cylinder (flashlight head) where it fits tightlyā¦ and the bottom is no longer square to the rest. See the problem? The tight fit around the circumference requires that the faces be square or youāll have a tiny, tiny contact patch.
Furthermore, in order to achieve contact on both surfaces the bottom post/protrusion must be of exactly the right height. Too much and you only get one surfaceā¦ too little? You only get one surfaceā¦