Uniquefire UF-1405 - A worthy zoomy?

I don’t have any problems pre-tinning. I do that with a butane torch while it is still just the tube. However you just gave me a great idea for pre-tinning when I don’t have any clearance, the gouges would fill with solder, then I could turn it back down to the original OD and still have exposed solder.

The darn thing moves so much heat that it’s difficult getting the solder to stick to it when I go to solder the driver in place (with my Hakko 936 @ max temp). Hitting afterwards with the torch gets everything to bond completely.

I never had to use torch for my copper pills, brass pills even easier. I also use good old hakko 936 :) Not even max temperature somewhere at 80%...

Logically torch should be easier...

It just did not look like firm fit on your picture. I was probably wrong...

I test each pill with additional rasping or filing over the solder and if it drops I cant solder the driver until I fix this.

You’re not totally wrong, I bet your sharp eyes noticed the area on the right side at bottom of the joint where it’s separated from the tube. That area is pretty small, the rest of it is solid.

Oh, and I’d probably have better luck if I changed out to a larger tip. I’m usually too impatient to let the iron cool and switch out to a larger chisel tip, and that small torch is always right there begging to be used.

Hakko 936 system is easy. So for example I got 2 soldering iron handles. One with fat tip for pre tining pills and one with finer tip for other finer stuff. When you are done just unplug handle and put in new one.

It is bugger to wait cooldown you have handles here they cost like peanuts: http://www.aliexpress.com/item/936-Electric-Soldering-Solder-Iron-Station-5pin-50W-24V-852D-853D-878AD-898D-936B-937D-Handle/1987294251.html

Hi…

I’m researching the uniquefire flashlights to use for a special application, a long distance photoelectric beam, but can’t find any specs on the minimum beam angle (spot beam) …the supplier ‘does not have the data’ supposedly, does anyone know what it is for say the 1503 model?

Thanks in advance…

Welcome to BLF, Turboflash!

Here's a thorough answer :-) :

the beam angle would be dependant on the die size of the used led, but assuming you use a modern infrared led, like the newest oslon black ir, the 1503 model will give a beam angle of 3 degrees.

I base this on my UF-1406 flashlight (the 2x18650 version of the 1503, optically the same) which has a beam angle of almost exactly 2 degrees with a dedomed XP-G2 (just measured: spot width=18cm at 5 meter distance). The die size of the Oslon, as observed through its dome (this is what the flashlight lens 'sees' as well) is exactly 1.5 times wider so the beam will be 3 degrees instead of the 2 degrees of my dedomed XP-G2 light.

(I ignore the focal length shift of the longer wavelength ir-light compared to white ;-) )

I also tried this new Oslon Black SF4715A and while it has wider beam than 4715S and without that nasty middle hole I don't find it better performer. So I am looking forward for serious test and opinion from you Djozz.

Oh, oh, so you noticed I had not tested this one...

I want to do some other things first but I promise to do a direct comparison to the SFH 4715S eventually (emitter tests are very interesting, but because of the repetitive work require a bit more perseverence than doing flashlight mods..)

You are BLF King... I learned a lot from your tests which are very nice explained with graphs and pictures.

About the glass replacement lenses talked about. I have gone through quite my share of lenses from Fasttech, Edmund, Anchor, Thor, and Alibaba acrylic mass-produced lenses for common zoomies.

What I have found is what you might expect, you generally get what you pay for, of course. However, I obtained a few very good looking lenses from FT, which under inspection did not present many imperfections, ripples, or bubbles in the glass at all. Yet what I was usually most surprised to find, was that when I would obtain a cheapie glass lens like that, that also met the same objective-aperture size as an acrylic lens, the acrylic lens yielded higher kCd by a substantial percentage in nearly all tests. For example, a very cheap host I have available here locally on the store shelves is a sliding zoomie, with 50mm plano-convex acrylic lens size (total lens OD). When I replaced that lens with a FT 49.5mm lens (JGF-50DT-2 49.5mm Optical Glass Plano-convex Lens), having the same lens aperture (curved diameter) as the acrylic lens, slightly shorter FL by a few mm, the acrylic lens yielded a kCd over 25% greater. What I have found with acrylic lenses, is it is really hit and miss—some have visible wavy dimples on the plano side, or fuzz-like strands inside the plastic with bubbles galore. But, when both lenses are “great” looking, I almost always find acrylic to be better in un-coated transmittance than cheap glass. I would likely attribute this to the acrylic having a lower index of refraction than some of the cheap glass used by these cheap lens makers. Furthermore, there aren’t many options when you do find a size you want, so that doesn’t help things. It is well documented however, that acrylic yields high-performing lenses in many different applications for commercial component use over some or many glass substrates. So never, ever, dismiss acrylic!

When the glass is quite good however, the focal image is very smooth to sharp all around the area of optimal focal-point, with very limited coma even if slightly de-focused. When the lens has a poorly calculated mold/aspheric profile, or poor glass substrate (while still looking geometrically optimal in casting), at nearer 10-15 meter distances the image will be filled with visible coma from many stray light-ray refractions radiating from different non-collimated angles. That is your dead giveaway to a cheap glass substrate; a fog of light around the focused image.

Edmunds and Thor have provided me excellent glass I will say. I do use an optical translation stage when testing lenses (twin moving stages adjustable on a fixed 500mm rail through rack-pinion knob adjustments), so that near perfect alignment/FL does occur in the tests. I have a coating supplier for AR-VIS broadband now, with a new coating available that covers the entire range of LED white light mix from 425nm-675nm @ <0.5% R value with zero R rise between those wavelengths. Such coatings will further benefit the kCd by typically 5-6% minimal increase, sometimes as high as 10%, and result in very true color rendering of the die. …Makes me giggle when I see FT stating; “98% Light Transmittance” on un-coated lenses. :slight_smile:

I am going to pursue one of these light builds with one of my reflective apertures and follow the progress here. They do look like very interesting material for an overhaul. :slight_smile:

please stop spamming!

Quit spamming BLF!

@MEM, thanks very good info as always :slight_smile:
I look forward to see what you can do with the UF-1405/1504 platform :wink:

I have only very limited experience with similar sized glass vs acrylic lenses, but thanks for confirming my suspicions and explaining what to look for, very useful. One those few tests i have done i have also found the stock acrylic surprisingly to me be superior, because then i didn’t realize that just because it’s glass doesn’t mean it is superior.

Can you tell me where to buy some good quality cheap acrylic lenses? preferably in this size for the 1405/1504. Or is it just to search alibaba/aliexpress and hope you find & get a good one.

This coating supplier you are referring to, how much does it cost and where can we send lenses to get upgraded with good quality AR?

Thanks for the infirmation, MEM. I have a similar experience with lenses, acrylic ones are always well made and always work well, (cheap) glass lenses are hit and miss, you can sometimes easily see the surface imperfections, and often the coma in the die image.

At first I thought M4D M4X was talking to me as I saw his post right after mine. I thought WTH? Then I saw the “Zeng@LM” crap. Typical posting you see on the laser forums, too. You’re talking about something in a thread, like a blue laser diode, and the typical “Zeng Lee Foo” pops in with links to some random chaotic crap saying, “try this, try this, it’s flashlight!”

…IT’S SO, |)@NM, ANNOYING.

Eh. Anyways. :slight_smile: I have a sample coming in the mail from them of the new coating, I don’t have any official pricing yet until received. Usually with broadband AR coatings, you might have to give up a little % loss at one wavelength region or another when dealing with white light, since you have 3 color regions spanning the output. So a choice might have to be made. With this stuff, it’s just a flat-line across the visible spectrum (based on the line graph). Exactly what you want to see. I’m hoping tests confirm this once it arrives. Usually blue light at lower wavelengths is the color area where the coating falls off in transmittance a little. So you get a very deep/royal blue reflection from the lens back at you from white light that will be dimmer the better. The red that reflects out is closer to the IR range (where the broadbands usually fall off in transmittance value), which your eyes don’t pick up so well—leaves the blue as all you see. Some coatings fall off further in on each end of the visible spectrum which they can pass, resulting in a pinkish-purple color, like in below photo. Regardless of how colorful it looks, it sure helps ANY lens get a greater total amount of photons through. :slight_smile:

The way I have found the acrylic lenses, is by measuring the OD with a caliper when I find one in a light. They might be 38.25mm on average for a given light, so I search for a “38mm” plastic/acrylic lens, find one with detailed pictures, hold the lens I have in hand up in front of the PC monitor until the scale outline syncs with the photo on-screen, see that they both have the same mold pattern of (3-4) dots on the rim with same exact curvature, and voila. A match. This is just how I have tracked down matches to lenses already found in a light, so I can confirm a source. Then that seller might link to a list of acrylic sizes they carry, and you can assume they’re likely all alright for acrylic. But if I can get the lens from Edmund/Thor in the size and FL I need, it’s probably better (these companies work harder on lens patterns they produce to get them right, which is reflected in their prices). It’s just up to you if you want to pay $40+ per “good” lens and gamble on it working for you. The problem is, I don’t know of too many larger acrylic lenses out there. Those are usually <50mm, then become scarce in any real selection past that diameter.

Big lights just let me use big lens sizes that don’t have to be within a mm or two to work. Turn some spacers and hold a slightly smaller lens if needed.

When I get some extra time I’ll apply some of my tricks to a 140X light and see what can be done. I have a couple other aspheric lights in line on the bench which I want to finish first, but definitely will grab one of these with a chunk of copper bar. :smiley:

Some AR coated optics and one of my apertures—might help a 1405. :slight_smile: For S&Gs…

1/16000 ISO 100 right inside the reflective aperture @ 4A. Dome still on (aperture-testing LED).

Anybody have side-by-side comparison between the XP-G2 beam and a n XP-L/XM-L beam?

Nice one MEM...

Maybe you could be the man that can start selling collars or special acrylic versions for our UF1504(short) or UF1405(long) flashlights?

LOL i just asked about collars for the UF-1405/1504 platform in Linus thread :slight_smile:

But a better acrylic lens for this is also a good idea, i have tried to find some at aliexpress but so far i haven’t succeeded.

The only lens upgrade for this i know of is the slightly thicker lens KKW found at fasttech.

I should mention that the fasttech lens did need a slight amount of sanding on the outer diameter of the rim to fit. Anyone without a belt sander and at least a 220 grit silicone carbide belt needs to set aside an hour or two to do this by hand. If you have the above mentioned items it’s about 2 minutes.

I’d also like to reiterate that there were noticeable ring artifacts in the lens I’ve built into a light. Something to consider if that sort of thing bothers you.