A solution to manufacturing marks in brass pills

I have to agree with Jaxman…

Small imperfections on the pill such as machining marks, scratches or center dimple have little to no effect on the performance for an average consumer. However, flatness of the surface, the amount of thermal paste and the way the Mcpcb is secured plays a way more important role.

Investing resources on process control will only raise the production cost of the product, sure it will save time by not having to hand-finish the pills, but the fact is labour is cheap in China and everything revolves around highest production efficiency for the ¥¥¥.

To manually finish 20% of the pills, or slow down production by 30% to make them flawless? Maybe if it was in the US the answer would be different.

After all, remember this is a BRASS PILL, even with prefect machining the heat transfer won’t magically improve.

Agree 100%.

Ok, so, perhaps today I head out to the lathe and make a copper pill to see if it changes anything about how this light works.

Jaxman, I salute you!

Very nice to see your pride in the lights you build. I, for one, appreciate that!

One problem is when they design the process to allow for a certain number of rejects but go ahead and use the rejects instead. Either because they don’t have Lucy inspecting them, or do but as with Lucy the person isn’t trained properly to handle them. Whatever the case, keep trying Jaxman. Improvement comes from not being satisfied by current results.

Rejects? hahaha. Good one Scott.

I know the other thread got locked but if anyone wants to go back and read my original ‘complaint’ (I use that word lightly) about my pill, which is really what started all of this, it wasn’t really about machining marks - it was about the profile. Mine was quite a bit taller in the center resulting in a teetering noctigon, which means very little surface-to-surface contact at all. I don’t mind taking a few minutes to smooth out some machining marks, or even “filling them in” with solder when I flow it all together, but if the noctigon won’t even lay flat there’s no solution but to remove quite a bit of material, which is not a fun process to do by hand.

Others have not reported the same issue though, so it would seem I just got unlucky which isn’t a big deal. It happens.

I hope that translates well to Chinese and is clear.

I also hope that two different materials — “copper” and “brass” — translate clearly, for this conversation.

Jaxman you are really doing excellent work. I work very closely with Convoy on many projects so I am familiar with the troubles both you and Simon face having to work with the resources available to you in your part of China. I know you both put a tremendous amount of your own time into your flashlight companies. In my opinion Jaxman and Convoy stand out above the rest of the competition in providing high quality flashlights while keeping cost to your buyers very reasonable. Truly exceptional value-per-dollar. Well done. :+1:

问题在于中心部位稍微凸起,导致接触面积减少。

Also for Jaxman, note the original post by emarkd is a different issue — and the two different issues are already being confused a bit here:

That’s an example of a reject not being rejected.

I agree with J-Dub74. Jaxman has excellent quality overall. I would directly compare them to Convoy. The original complaint about the pill really is a very small problem. Honestly, the average user probably wouldn’t realize any kind of difference. And it would be very difficult to measure the difference between a perfectly flat pill, and a pill with a raised center. I believe a member here is going to attempt to measure the difference, but there are so many variables that it would be difficult to notice differences without precise measuring equipment. If two flashlights were fully assembled, and the average user tried both at the same time, I doubt they would be able to pick the one with the imperfect pill.

I think the main point to realize is this: BLF has some very talented and precise members who are able to detect even the smallest of imperfections. I would compare this to an average wine drinker, and a sommelier (侍酒师 / Shì jiǔ shī ). As much as I would love a 100% perfect flashlight, I enjoy the cheaper price tags, and the small amount of work that goes into making the flashlight a precise tool.

ISTM there are several issues of concern here, and I continue to communicate with Jaxman.

Visible machining marks, perhaps suggestive of worn tooling, should not, in themselves, affect the flatness of the pill.

But I agree, are undesirable.

But before crying “foul” about the flatness, it is also necessary to be sure that the MCPCB is also perfectly flat.

It is not unknown for these to be a little dished, hence the perfectionists who “lap” them using e.g. fine grit or abrasive paper, on e.g. a piece of float glass.

This is easily checked, e.g. put them down on a flat piece of glass, e.g. float glass, or a mirror, and see if they rock (convex bottom surface).

To test for concave bottom surface, you could use “engineer’s blue” or simply felt pen ink, to determine where physical contact is present, or absent.

I would also suggest, that some basic checks of pill flatness be performed, before declaring it bad.

As simple as offering up e.g. the end of a steel ruler to the surface.

Or better, break a razor blade to size, and offer the edge up.

If the pill turns out not to be sufficiently flat, simple circular grinding or lapping will not improve it. In fact will tend to make it more convex.

TBH, the approach suggested, careful application of a graver, wrapped in abrasive paper, with some sensitivity, would probably be the best approach.

Having served an apprenticeship that included scraping surface tables flat, to within a few wavelengths of light, I would have no problem in truing up any such minor imperfection.

And then, there is the question as to how important this is, in reality. Mirror finished, absolutely flat to the level that Newton’s rings are formed ?

I see this sort of work as the difference between a mass-produced mainstream item, and a hand-finished offering, that takes things to the next level.

I am encouraged that Jaxman take this much care with their standard products, and have operators who can take the initiative to correct any such minor imperfections.

I hope that we can try to reach the same standards.

Well said and I agree. Truly exceptional value-per-dollar. Well done.

Of interest to note, this particular light demands an exacting placement of the emitter. The aspheric will lose focus if the emitter is shifted even a few hundredths of a mm. Too far away from the lens and focus can be adjusted by the thread action of the head, too close to the lens and it simply won’t focus.

I got the overall height of the mounted copper pill several hundredth’s of a mm high, had to use a thin spacer ring to take the aspheric higher and accommodate this error. :wink:

So, if there is a dome to the emitter shelf in the pill, it might truly effect performance of this light. Ordinarily it wouldn’t be much of an issue, but with this aspheric, it may very well be. Fitment here is pretty critical.

Dale, did you observe this with your Luminus emitter, in its substantial (thick) package ?

Because, if so, it may have simply been that the overall stack height was on the limit of the focussing range of the threads.

If instead, you saw this with e.g. a standard LED, directly soldered to e.g. a 1.6mm thick MCPCB, that would be of more concern.

There should be no particular reason why the lens cannot focus properly, as long as the distance from LED to lens is in the correct range. If the LED is too high, the lens will need to be spaced higher also, which I think is do-able, to an extent.

Otherwise perhaps the pill could be sunk a little lower into the head. Did this problem happen with the original brass pill, or your copper replacement ?

The SBT-70 is a low emitter for it’s diameter. While it takes an MT-G2 mcpcb to mount, the stack profile is quite short… as seen once the AR coated window and it’s frame are removed. Very thin, difficult to pick up actually when it comes to mounting it.

At any rate, the aspheric had it in focus on the stock brass pill. I changed the top end of my copper fitment such that it has a shoulder sitting on top of the shelf in the head, whereas the brass pill is straight at that point and doesn’t utilize all the available space under the cover plate. In so doing, I missed the mark by just a wee bit and the die surface is that little bit higher, resulting in an out-of-focus image profile. A thin shim solved this issue and even allowed bypassing the focal point slightly such that a blue ring appears around the hot spot at closer range. This might actually help me achieve further throw, obtaining a more distance crossover of the mirrored image.

:+1: … Yes, I totally agree with this! I appreciate it also.

I have 4 - Z1’s, two production models and two hosts… the quality these lights is evident to me. The pills in the host’s are just fine too. Perfectly acceptable in all ways as well as dimensions.

Nice going Jaxman, keep up the good work…. :+1:

Sorry for stupid question, but why dont you make top surface of the pill totally flat , without any cavity / edges for LED star? May be it will be a bit harder to place star exactly at the center, but more easy to make it perfectly flat / polished.

Not a stupid question at all :student: