Hi,
How much surgery?
I haven’t actually opened up the DST pill, but from looking at the MF pics, it looks like the driver’s height would be a problem?
What about the diameter? Do you know what the inner diameter of the driver end of the DST’s pill is?
Jim
Any change in throw readings?
A good amount. The driver’s vertical board won’t slide into the pill. One would have to cut slots through the driver portion of the pill to slide the driver in. It’s doable and I plan to do so, but it is probably worth a few bucks use a different driver. I like the driver because it is cheap and tough and easily moddable for power output. Not sure about depth, but I think it would fit.
I tried earlier, but it was daytime, so I had trouble finding an area that was dark, so I’m planning to try again later.
Hi,
FYI, I just measured the driver end of the DST pill, and it’s diameter is only ~20mm, but looking at the pic on that MF page with the caliper, it looks like the round PCB is ~26 mm diameter, so it wouldn’t fit into the pill opening?
Also, the upright PCB looks about the same width, so, if I’m understanding what you said about cutting slots in the pill, that upright PCB would be sticking out a couple of mms on each side, which would prevent the pill from being screwed in?
The pill will still screw in. There driver section of the pill is smaller in diameter than the rest of the pill. So there is a big gap all around the driver section of the pill.
Ahh. But the upright PCB will be sticking out of the sides of the pill, right? I’m just asking to check if I’m understanding what slots you were talking about.
Also, what about the difference between the round PCB diameter and the diameter of the pill opening on the driver side of the pill?
I had to setup for the new tests in a different area of our house (got kicked out of the kitchen by my wife :(!!), but since we don’t have tiles in the new area, I used a tape measure instead of counting tiles.
The results, including earlier tests:
| Light | LUX | Comments |
| TEST1 | Original tests, w/CPF MT-G2 | |
| HD2010 | 2850 | 1 x Efest, 4.20V – ~4.16 amps |
| Trustfire X6 | 2350 | 3 x Efest, 4.20V – ~1.76 amps |
| CPF MT-G2 | 982 | 2 x Efest, 4.20V – ~3.16 amps |
| DST | 3430 | 1 x Efest, 4.20V |
| TEST2 | Test with DST w/MT-G2 | |
| DST MT-G2 | 2070 | 2 x Efest 18350, 4.20V |
| TEST3 | Test with DST w/MT-G2 further into reflector | |
| HD2010 | 2540-2590 | 1 x Efest, 4.20V |
| DST MT-G2 | 1695-1760 | 2 x Efest 18350, 4.20V |
I don’t really have an explanation why the numbers went down, but may be because of different area and measurements of the 14’/4.3 meters? But, at least the HD2010, which is a kind of baseline, seems to be in the same “ballpark” (but even that was less) in both the original test, and this newest test?
I also coaxed my daughter to go outside and subjectively compare the HD2010 vs. the DST MT-G2, and she said almost the same thing that I said earlier, i.e., that the DST MT-G2 might be a little brighter, but it was really difficult to say for sure. She also made a comment that was similar to what comfy said earlier, that because the DST MT-G2 beam was much broader, and lighted up a lot of area up to, and around the target (a tree line, maybe 100+ yards away), it kind of made the area in the hotspot “look” brighter.
Edit: I just thought of something: With lux meters, is background light “add” to the lux measurement? In other words, if I was using the lux meter, and without the flashlight being pointed to it, it was reading, say 100, and then I shone the flashlight on the meter, and it read, say, 2000, would “100” of that be from the background lighting, so the actual lux for the flashlight would be 2000-100 = 1900 lux?
The reason for the question is that one difference between the tests I did tonight vs. last night was that the new area where I’m testing is almost completely dark, whereas in the area I was testing last night, in our kitchen, there was some (not a lot) of background light from a clock on the oven, etc.
It sounds like the light became less of a thrower, but better for general usage. Would that be an accurate assessment at this point?
You’re correct about why the slots in the driver would be needed. The driver has a couple small components that would not allow the driver to rest flat against the pill. If a bevel was filed into the pill so that only a thin outer area made contact with the driver, it would sit flat.
The driver fits in a 3/4” copper pipe coupling. One could cut off most of the driver side of the pill and then mate the coupling to the pill. Not sure how to join the two together off the top of my head. If this approach is taken, no slots would be necessary.
Re. your 1st sentence: I think that’s pretty close description of the difference, but I’m still scratching my head about “Why?”. I’m like 99% sure that the emitter is further/deeper into the reflector. Also, you can kind of see that in the pic I posted of the reflector, where the yellow area around the eemiiter is larger than before and more uniform/round. If that is really the case, then I was thinking (hoping) that that would increase the lux #s, but as you can see from the numbers, that’s not what happened.
It’s been a long time since I studied optics, but I’m thinking that maybe the DST reflector is designed optically specifically for an emitter that’s the size of the XM-L, to optimize the angles that light hits the reflector and then gets reflected outward, and with a physically larger emitter, like the MT-G2, all the calculations that the designer(s) made, based on the XM-L-sized emitter, are off.
Re. the driver: If you eliminated the driver end of the pill, and had that 3/4” coupling, what if you put some threads on the end of that coupling. Would that then be able to screw into that finned section of the DST, but from the opposite side from where the pill screws into it? In other words, kind of like a pill in 2 pieces. One pieces (the emitter side) screws in from the front, and the other piece (the coupling with the driver) screws in from the other side.
Or, maybe thread the entire coupling, and screw that in first, before screwing in the cutdown pill?
Threading would be a great approach, but the head has a much larger opening then the diameter of the 3/4” coupling. Don’t know the size off the top of my head. Maybe there is a coupling out there that could bridge the gap. Have to keep an eye out for that.
I’m hoping there is a way to make the mgt2 still throw in the DST. The DST seems to have good enough heat sinking to handle all that wattage.
I know. I bought another DST this weekend, just to try that :)…
You can build just about any shape imaginable with copper pipe/wire and a little solder.
The only trick to that is, any soldering to something made of copper and with that much mass you have to do it all in one go, which makes it hard if there's intricate parts involved that really need to be added in a separate step. That thing was intended to be a pill of sorts for a D cell Mag, it came out just a little too small on the OD to be a tight fit in the tube like it needed.
I have a TIG welder, and copper is pretty easily TIGged, I don't know why I don't resort to that option more often...
It’s kind of hard to tell from the pics on MF’s site, but is that upright PCB just soldered onto the other PCB at 2 points? If so, I was wondering if you unsolder it, and connect it via 2 wires? That might give you some freedom as far as how and where you put that PCB?
That’s not a bad idea. It had some glue, but it scraped off pretty easy. Just 2 solder points after that. Something to consider.
Your thread convinced me to pick up another DST. I’m going to keep it sealed up so that I can return it easily though.
Hi,
I hope that works out and helps :)… BTW, if you do try that, I’d suggest using some fairly heavy wire, if possible, maybe 20 or 22 AWG, to re-connect the two PCBs?
the stock reflector leave a huge black hole in the hotspot using an xre. so its useless
edit: this was meant for another thread… sorry!
I think there may be something about the size of the flat area around the emitter hole in relation to the die size that affects how well a particular LED/reflector combo will work. Though, I have found one with a taper all the way down to the emitter hole (no flat area at all) that works well, the ~37mm textured SST50 reflector. That one makes a diffused center spot, but it's got no weird artifacts in it. It's not nearly as crisp around the spot like the S1100 (BIG flat area around emitter hole) does with the same LED - could be just the overall shape of the SST50 one, or could be the OP surface, I have a spare so I may strip off the coating with acetone & repolish and see what changes.