Cooling flashlight head with cold water

[Rusty_Joe]

True story: I ran my MC-E zoomie for the full 2 hours and 11 minutes it can go on high about 4 months ago and it got nearly too hot to touch. Then I let an ice cube melt on the neck and head. It cooled to under room temp and stayed there for the remainder of the run! You darn right it’s effective.

[Rufusbduck]

@Bort

@Rufusbduck

@Bort

Very interesting, i never thought of that, i instinctively avoided getting water on the openings where the o-rings are because if water was to somehow get in, that would have to be the entry point, but this scenario seems plausible.
Time to call mythbusters

A light that would leak this way might be called water resistant but certainly isn’t waterproof to any depth. Watches are often rated to 100m that can’t stand a trip through the shower. O rings should either be under compression or contact mated surfaces rather than threads and always need to be cleaned and relubed prior to immersion.
Myth busters is an entertaining show but I wouldn’t put too much stock in their results. Their science is not good often using tests that don’t scale well or drawing doubtful conclusions from poor modeling. They’re not always wrong but often enough not to rely on. But it was fun seeing them blow up a concrete truck.

Really?

i think they sometimes draw broad conclusions based on their tests, but i would find it hard to believe they are wrong as much as you say.
When they say something is confirmed you have watched them do it, what incentive do they have to fake it, their profits don’t depend on a confirmed to busted ratio

Mind you for some of the busted things, there may be a different way that would work or it could be a one in a million result, those can happen but not show up in their tests, hence the broad range conclusions may not always be accurate

I’ve no idea what their motivation is besides making a show but just the notion that they’re making a show rather than a thesis ought to be some clue. In any case the outcomes shouldn’t be taken as the final word without the scrutiny that any thesis would get. Don’t get me wrong, I like the show, but as with 60 Minutes, the bottom line is entertainment, not truth or factuality.

[Bort (BortyMcBortface)]

@Rufusbduck

@Bort

@Rufusbduck

@Bort

Very interesting, i never thought of that, i instinctively avoided getting water on the openings where the o-rings are because if water was to somehow get in, that would have to be the entry point, but this scenario seems plausible.
Time to call mythbusters

A light that would leak this way might be called water resistant but certainly isn’t waterproof to any depth. Watches are often rated to 100m that can’t stand a trip through the shower. O rings should either be under compression or contact mated surfaces rather than threads and always need to be cleaned and relubed prior to immersion.
Myth busters is an entertaining show but I wouldn’t put too much stock in their results. Their science is not good often using tests that don’t scale well or drawing doubtful conclusions from poor modeling. They’re not always wrong but often enough not to rely on. But it was fun seeing them blow up a concrete truck.

Really?

i think they sometimes draw broad conclusions based on their tests, but i would find it hard to believe they are wrong as much as you say.
When they say something is confirmed you have watched them do it, what incentive do they have to fake it, their profits don’t depend on a confirmed to busted ratio

Mind you for some of the busted things, there may be a different way that would work or it could be a one in a million result, those can happen but not show up in their tests, hence the broad range conclusions may not always be accurate

I’ve no idea what their motivation is besides making a show but just the notion that they’re making a show rather than a thesis ought to be some clue. In any case the outcomes shouldn’t be taken as the final word without the scrutiny that any thesis would get. Don’t get me wrong, I like the show, but as with 60 Minutes, the bottom line is entertainment, not truth or factuality.

i agree, more then a few myths could be solved with some math calculations or a simple test in a beaker, but that would make for poor entertainment
until i see some real evidence i have trouble believing they are wrong as often as you say

[B42]

Its just his opinion. I dont think they are wrong as often as he seems to indicate either, however they do very poor modeling and sometimes they are even right for the wrong reasons, or misinterpreted their own data…thats kind of amusing to me. More amusing than news reports of scientific studies that “interpret” what the study means wrong and then millions of people get the wrong idea

[B42]

And, oh yeah, water cooling: 2/3 of the year I have natural water cooling (northwest weather patterns). It works wonders, I sometimes can actually run my lights that burn my hands at full power at barely room temperature for 1hr+…but then the rain obscures the beam…always something, right?

[Rufusbduck]

Not saying they’re wrong that often just that their results are unreliable. What bugs me most is when they say “we already busted this myth but we’re going to do it again” and then proceed to not prove anything all over again. Put it this way, I would not use them as a source for anything other than anecdotal entertainment.

[Bort (BortyMcBortface)]

@Rufusbduck

Not saying they’re wrong that often just that their results are unreliable. What bugs me most is when they say “we already busted this myth but we’re going to do it again” and then proceed to not prove anything all over again. Put it this way, I would not use them as a source for anything other than anecdotal entertainment.

some critical intelligence is in order, i would not bet my life on the basis of their results, and i mentioned how i am wary of their broad conclusions based on one type of test, but they explain their results well and point out real world examples of proven myths when they can find them, and they have more then enough rabid fans that if they lied on the air they would get called out pretty quick

Whats wrong with reconfirming your results? Repeatability is a good thing, and if they get a different result or use a different method to get a different result they don’t try to pretend it didn’t happen

[Rufusbduck]

Burning the toast is repeatable but not proof that the toaster is broken.

[Bort (BortyMcBortface)]

@Rufusbduck

Burning the toast is repeatable but not proof that the toaster is broken.

huh?

[Rufusbduck]

@Bort

@Rufusbduck

Burning the toast is repeatable but not proof that the toaster is broken.

huh?

You said repeatability was good. Repeating past mistakes doesn’t validate a poor thesis. I enjoy the show, I also disagree with their conclusions from time to time.

[Bort (BortyMcBortface)]

@Rufusbduck

@Bort

@Rufusbduck

Burning the toast is repeatable but not proof that the toaster is broken.

huh?

You said repeatability was good. Repeating past mistakes doesn’t validate a poor thesis. I enjoy the show, I also disagree with their conclusions from time to time.

if they were only repeating past mistakes then their conclusions would always be the same as the first time, they usually redo a myth with a different method and often get the same result, and the times they get a different one shows they are willing to admit they made a mistake and change their conclusion. Like i said, their fans are pretty smart people who aren’t afraid to call them on things. If they were super human and could think of every possible way to test something then they should be solving the important world problems instead of mythbusting
I also disagree with some of their conclusions (the gas mileage vs AC one comes to mind they tested a few vehicles, not all the models out there, nor could they so that should not have had a concrete conclusion), and if something were a one in a million result they could not replicate then at the very least they have shown the chances of you getting out of such a situation is truly one in a million.