Besides the loss from the glass, you also gain a lot of lumens from having the optic higher up, i think it was Tom E who showed the differences when he built & measured his light without a glass lens & raised spacer. Sorry i don’t remember how much or where i read it.
I had the old design spacer for glass, and i added a sanded down (the top) XP32 Noctigon to it & that seemed to be a perfect fit for no glass height. I didn’t buy it from nitro but i should have been the same design Dale made.
To have glass, or not -- in the past some preferred it, but I don't see any merits, just disadvantages as mentioned: loss of lumens with the glass in the light path, possible loss's due to the optics/LED's sitting lower.
I don't see commerical TIR optic flashlights coming with glass lens, at least not I'm aware of, and the optics can be replaced easily if damaged, and they are not expensive. If you put a UCL or UCLp there to reduce loss's, then the replacement cost is like twice as much over the optics. I had to use a lens over the quad because it was needed to keep the quad secured down (believe I went with a UCL or UCLp), but the triple optics fits the bezel perfectly.
I wonder how much lumens you would get if you just take out the reflector and bezel & just drop the XP32 Noctigon with 4 XP-L V6 on the second (the one above the mcpcb shelf) X6 shelf & run it like a mule?
So true! At first i was thinking that the glass protects the TIR, but it seems that the last one has quite hard to scratch surface, then again, that glass lowers at least 4% of the total output and makes the beam profile a bit tighter
The best way for that heatsink is to be Al and a bit higher/thicker than original Nitro`s heatsink in order to avoid the glass
Cu one is just too heavy( 45grams vs 14) but thats personal opinion
I could not easily do that test. My triple and quad are bout the closest you can get to a mule light. Inside they simply light up a room completely - nothing is shady or dark. They have little throw, lots of width in flood - very different then even tiny reflectors in typical multi LED reflector based lights. In my light box the triple and quad are about dead even.
I would think you'd lose light in mule mode from the blockage of the head, compared to the TIR optics, but of course less loss's for not having the TIR optics, so maybe it comes out even?
K, the quad had XP-L V6 1A or 2A's (can't be sure, not good notes), while the triple has XP-L V6 3D's definite. The triple throws for 27 kcd while the quad does 6 kcd - big noticeable difference. In lumens I measured they were within 20 lumens of each other on the best cell I tested, so well within any margin of error, both ~4300 lumens @start, ~3900 lumens @30 secs.
Amps at the tails were 10A for the triple, 11A for the quad.
I much prefer the triple with some center beam, while the quad is a true flooder. I don't know much bout these TIR optics, but the triple fills the head of the X6 really nicely, LED's spread out on a bigger board, while the quad optics and MCPCB is smaller, compact but nitro's quad heatsink of course is much bigger/robust for the quad.