Texas_Ace wrote:

So basically you want Narsil lol

Also @Sofirn and everybody else, would it still feasible to include some of those little silicone rings to use 18650 cells instead of 26650? I suspect I’m not the only one that has an extensive assortment of 18650 cells but only about one or two 26650s cells.

Texas_Ace wrote:

(snip)
I think he is talking about the very thin walls along the edge of the reflector.

I pointed this out way back when the L6 was still in the prototype stage but it was never addressed. It would significantly improve heat dissipation if we gave the heat a path to use the fins along the top of the light.

As I am sure you know the heat is kind stuck around the shelf area of the light and has a hard time moving higher up the head to use all the fins.

See the Red area below:

Texas_Ace wrote:

JasonWW wrote:

Caleb wrote:

Compared to existing lights of this style (L6 and S70), is it possible to design the head with thicker internal shelf and additional/larger fins for better heat dissipation?

The L6 shelf already looks to be about 6mm thick and can already handle 120 watts. How much thicker does it need to be?

In looking at the L6 cutaway, I can see that if there is a triple emitter version built later on, the shelf is going to be much higher. This would be a great opportunity to use the same basic outer fin design as the single emitter except cut the fins under the shelf much deeper into the head. You will have much more surface area then.

Both single and triple versions would look very similar until you hold them sideways and notice the different fin depths. Does that make sense? I might try and draw a picture tonight.

BTW, the SP70 will use a clear rubber side switch boot like the Q8 to make the switch leds easy to see in the dark and identify the color.

I think he is talking about the very thin walls along the edge of the reflector.

I pointed this out way back when the L6 was still in the prototype stage but it was never addressed. It would significantly improve heat dissipation if we gave the heat a path to use the fins along the top of the light.

As I am sure you know the heat is kind stuck around the shelf area of the light and has a hard time moving higher up the head to use all the fins.

See the Red area below:

Good discussion.

Unless the design and CNC programing has already been finalized, anything we do to increase heat dissipation without significantly increasing cost is a good thing.

Don’t we all just want to be able to blast as much light as possible for as long as safely possible before stepping down?

My stock L6 gets too hot to be comfortable to hold in a relatively short time. If we’re bumping up the output significantly without making a way for the heat to be released, this will just exacerbate the issue.

This is already NOT a small light. Let’s not be afraid to add a few extra ounces of aluminum that could make a difference in performance.

I’ll let the engineers work out the specifics.

If you want I have an stock domed XHP70.2 Astrolux MF02 with TA driver and Andúril. 84mm head and 71mm reflector. I can set andúril ramping max to a specified lumen output and measure intensity and throw. That way we can estimate what we can get with the SP70.

I have an L6 XHP70.2 and it suffer heat transfer to upper fins. The hottest part around the side switch.

For firmware I really want Andúril but I’m ok with Narsil too

Caleb wrote:

Compared to existing lights of this style (L6 and S70), is it possible to design the head with thicker internal shelf and additional/larger fins for better heat dissipation?

Trustfire does some extreme finning in some lights, like this one:

Texas_Ace wrote:

Sounds nice, although unless they use BLF firmware / driver and get a good tint LED, I know a lot of people would still want to mod it with said parts, so not sure I personally would qualify it as a “BLF Series” light, but that is just me.

So I guess it depends on what they end up going with in the end.

Agree…

djozz wrote:

Caleb wrote:

Compared to existing lights of this style (L6 and S70), is it possible to design the head with thicker internal shelf and additional/larger fins for better heat dissipation?

larger and if possible deeper.

Trustfire does some extreme finning in some lights, like this one:

!{width:50%}https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1030/0431/products/XNDtZnJz_large.jpg!

Better heat sinking is one thing we are talking about. On the k70 we moved the fins around to address this and made the shelf 8mm thick.

Okay, I’m going to submit my official list of brightness levels for the SP70 to Sofirn.

I looked at the S70s spacing and L6 spacing.
I then used the Narsil in my L6 and my TA Lumen Tube to record it’s 4 level mode, 5 level mode and 6 level mode. I tried them all out seeing how useful they are and where the gap in brightness is too big or too small. I then tested out some custom levels.

I came up with a total of 6 levels which includes a hidden moonlight. I’m not sure how helpful moonlight would be on a light this size, but I figure it should be easy enough to add it as a hidden level. So we end up with 5 normal levels.

Turbo could be anywhere from 5000 lumen on up. For now I’ll say 5000+.

This level of turbo gets you into the issue of extreme heat which really limits run time. On my light I would have it stepping down after 50 to 60 seconds* as it’s just too hot to hold. So I think of it as a “not so practical” burst mode for when you need the max. It also rips through your battery life.

*I imagine a bit more runtime with a bigger head and maybe more mass.

So for a more practical and longer run time “high” mode, I would suggest 2000 to 2500 lumen

1-2 Moonlight
40-50 Low
250-300 Med 1
800-1000 Med 2
2000-2500 High
5000+ Turbo

My recommendation is to cycle through the 4 middle modes and have turbo on a double click.

Yes, 4 main modes is my preferred setup, a hidden moon and turbo is good as well.

I like it Jason.

Zulumoose wrote:

FlashTom wrote:

Can someone please explain what SP or SF mean on those Sofirn lights? Thanks!

It looks to me like SF is tail switch and SP is side switch. I would also like to know if there is more to it than that, and if the letters stand for anything in particular.

That’s also what I deciphered… SP models have side switch, while SF are only tail-switch.
Some SP models have both side & tail switch (eg. SP30A, SP31).

Sofirn has an official website, but it doesn’t seem to be that well known (a Google search for “Sofirn” will more likely than not link first to their Sofirn AliExpress Store rather than the “official” Sofirn website).

http://www.sofirnlight.com/en/product/productlist

There are more series listed in the Sofirn product list (SP, SF, SD, etc). Thorfire’s “TK” series is also on the list, although no models are listed there yet (many of the other series also don’t have any models yet, apart from the well populated SP and SF series).

Jason:
Like the levels
About turbo:
If unlimited fet driven madness like with a TA driver heat is an issue. But I played with the MF02 XHP70.2 yesterday and from 4000 to 9000 lumen the output bump with naked eye is not much but with 4k it can handle the power without heating up for 10 minutes. But with 9k it gets hot about one and a half minute. I’m trying to say that 6-7k lumens is about enough for turbo because above that most power will be turn in to heat and not light. For real world use it is better longer turbo runs without much heat.

Thanks for the Sofirn website link d_t_a!! I did not know they had one…
I only knew about the Amazon & AliExpress stores.

Here is a rough concept drawing. It’s is somewhat based on the L6 as I like that shape more than the S70.

You can have the same external appearance with both a single emitter and a triple emitter. With the triple emitter you get much more mass under the shelf, plus deeper fins. It’s a win win.

Note that I used the L6 75mm head diameter by mistake. The 90mm SP70 will be bigger in relation to the battery tube.

Also note that I’m a skilled photoshop user, but I only had paper and my phone for the above.

JasonWW wrote:

So for a more practical and longer run time “high” mode, I would suggest 2000 to 2500 lumen

1-2 Moonlight
40-50 Low
250-300 Med 1
800-1000 Med 2
2000-2500 High
5000+ Turbo

My recommendation is to cycle through the 4 middle modes and have turbo on a double click.

ZozzV6 wrote:

But I played with the MF02 XHP70.2 yesterday and from 4000 to 9000 lumen the output bump with naked eye is not much but with 4k it can handle the power without heating up for 10 minutes.

I don’t know if memory limits the number of modes or not, but if I had to sacrifice a mode I’d say the moonlight would be the least useful for this style of light. If we can keep it, great, but I think it might be more useful to have an additional “High” mode that can still be usable for a while. Something like:

• 1-2 Moonlight (If possible)
• 40-50 Low
• 250-300 Med 1
• 800-1000 Med 2
• 2000-2500 High
• 3500-4000 Highest
• 5000+ Turbo

Double-click to Turbo sounds good to me too.

(I also would still like to save a little bit of memory space for a hidden strobe and at least one beacon too, as discussed earlier in this thread.)

Hmmmm…… What sb says makes a lot of sense. And if moonlight was lost it would not be a great loss on this light.

JasonWW wrote:

Here is a rough concept drawing. It’s is somewhat based on the L6 as I like that shape more than the S70.

You can have the same external appearance with both a single emitter and a triple emitter. With the triple emitter you get much more mass under the shelf, plus deeper fins. It’s a win win.

Note that I used the L6 75mm head diameter by mistake. The 90mm SP70 will be bigger in relation to the battery tube.

Also note that I’m a skilled photoshop user, but I only had paper and my phone for the above.

I would like to see much thicker walls behind the fins.

The fins on the right side will be virtually useless as there is no path for the heat to travel.

Same for the upper fins on the left side.

You want the body of the light to hug the reflector outline as close as possible and make the fin depth such that you give the heat a good path to move up.

ZozzV6 wrote:

Jason:
Like the levels
About turbo:
If unlimited fet driven madness like with a TA driver heat is an issue. But I played with the MF02 XHP70.2 yesterday and from 4000 to 9000 lumen the output bump with naked eye is not much but with 4k it can handle the power without heating up for 10 minutes. But with 9k it gets hot about one and a half minute. I’m trying to say that 6-7k lumens is about enough for turbo because above that most power will be turn in to heat and not light. For real world use it is better longer turbo runs without much heat.

If the prototype SP70 can do 9000 lumen, then that would be great, but I don’t think it will. It may end up around the 6k to 7k range. If it can handle 4000 lumen for 10 minutes then I would be fine with that. It’s a matter of finding that sweet spot where the output only seems to drop a little, but the amp draw drops a lot. I know what you mean. Plus I only know the L6’s mass and heat characteristics. The SP70 might be quite a bit different.

So maybe:

1-2 Moonlight
40-50 Low
250-300 Med 1
800-1000 Med 2
2500-4000 High (whatever is practical)
5000+ Turbo

Worse case scenario, set your own “High” level in ramping mode.

Texas_Ace wrote:

JasonWW wrote:

Here is a rough concept drawing. It’s is somewhat based on the L6 as I like that shape more than the S70.

You can have the same external appearance with both a single emitter and a triple emitter. With the triple emitter you get much more mass under the shelf, plus deeper fins. It’s a win win.

Note that I used the L6 75mm head diameter by mistake. The 90mm SP70 will be bigger in relation to the battery tube.

Also note that I’m a skilled photoshop user, but I only had paper and my phone for the above.

I would like to see much thicker walls behind the fins.

The fins on the right side will be virtually useless as there is no path for the heat to travel.

Same for the upper fins on the left side.

You want the body of the light to hug the reflector outline as close as possible and make the fin depth such that you give the heat a good path to move up.

Texas_Ace wrote:

See the Red area below:

I like the proposed levels as well, covers every practical use I would think, with sensible intuitive spacing. The high level should be determined by sustainability though, not predetermined. Turbo of course should be at or close to maximum achievable for a 1 to 3 minute burst.

I really like the 3 emitter design with deep heat sinking, would do for this form factor what the C8F did for the C8. If I recall correctly previous discussions on fins and spacing the hand drawn fins are maybe too close?

JasonWW wrote:

If the prototype SP70 can do 9000 lumen, then that would be great, but I don’t think it will. It may end up around the 6k to 7k range.

Quote:

Worse case scenario, set your own “High” level in ramping mode.

Texas_Ace wrote:

JasonWW wrote:

Here is a rough concept drawing. It’s is somewhat based on the L6 as I like that shape more than the S70.

You can have the same external appearance with both a single emitter and a triple emitter. With the triple emitter you get much more mass under the shelf, plus deeper fins. It’s a win win.

Note that I used the L6 75mm head diameter by mistake. The 90mm SP70 will be bigger in relation to the battery tube.

Also note that I’m a skilled photoshop user, but I only had paper and my phone for the above.

I would like to see much thicker walls behind the fins.

The fins on the right side will be virtually useless as there is no path for the heat to travel.

Same for the upper fins on the left side.

You want the body of the light to hug the reflector outline as close as possible and make the fin depth such that you give the heat a good path to move up.

I just wanted to show the shelf idea and I had to do it quickly. Feel free to tweak it or do your own drawing.

4-5000 lumens high is too much I think. MF02 has much more head mass. And the jump from that to 6-7000 is not significant. 3000-3500 lumens ramp max can run until battery dies with slight warming up.

OMG this is so important especially for a sustainable high output light like this! I don’t want a 7000lumen light that loses 2,000 lumens in 1 minutes

Texas_Ace wrote:

I think he is talking about the very thin walls along the edge of the reflector.

I pointed this out way back when the L6 was still in the prototype stage but it was never addressed. It would significantly improve heat dissipation if we gave the heat a path to use the fins along the top of the light.

As I am sure you know the heat is kind stuck around the shelf area of the light and has a hard time moving higher up the head to use all the fins.

See the Red area below:

JasonWW wrote:

Texas_Ace wrote:

JasonWW wrote:

Here is a rough concept drawing. It’s is somewhat based on the L6 as I like that shape more than the S70.

You can have the same external appearance with both a single emitter and a triple emitter. With the triple emitter you get much more mass under the shelf, plus deeper fins. It’s a win win.

Note that I used the L6 75mm head diameter by mistake. The 90mm SP70 will be bigger in relation to the battery tube.

Also note that I’m a skilled photoshop user, but I only had paper and my phone for the above.

I would like to see much thicker walls behind the fins.

The fins on the right side will be virtually useless as there is no path for the heat to travel.

Same for the upper fins on the left side.

You want the body of the light to hug the reflector outline as close as possible and make the fin depth such that you give the heat a good path to move up.

It’s not a cad drawing! Lol

I just wanted to show the shelf idea and I had to do it quickly. Feel free to tweak it or do your own drawing.

lol, I am aware but for some reason the china manufactures love to make the walls that thin unless we specifically tell them to make them thicker.

Basically they should leave as much material as possible inside the head, there is really no reason to remove it, the slight weight savings is not worth it IMHO.

Looking good. I like the levels as well. And agree with thicker walls. Thanks to all putting work into this.

Sorry if this idea has been addressed.

we have “shorty” versions of small lights. How about a “shorty” (2 cell) version of this with a 1 tube if folks want to run 3 cells

Ronin42 wrote:

Sorry if this idea has been addressed.

we have “shorty” versions of small lights. How about a “shorty” (2 cell) version of this with a 1 tube if folks want to run 3 cells

Ronin42 wrote:

Sorry if this idea has been addressed.

we have “shorty” versions of small lights. How about a “shorty” (2 cell) version of this with a 1 tube if folks want to run 3 cells