I’m disappointed that its not the first 100 that stated they were interested that get priority when ordering (like the first 500 with the GT)
Instead its the first 100 that place an order that get the benefit of the lowest price…… :person_facepalming:
.
So there’s really no point in being quick about saying you’re interested, its only to the manufacturers’ advantage to have an idea of how many people are interested.
.
Not good. Still interested though so pls send me a code.
Hopefully I will see it in time to be with the first 100 because I’m going on holiday tomorrow morning.
.
Chances are the fist 100 are sold by the time I am back. 
.
Grtz
Nico
Could You give me the coupon code?
Thank You
I would’ve thought the PM would have been sent to the first 100 on the list first, as was done on the GT gb.
Oh well, still ordered a MF04 this morning! I was 91 on the list.
Yep Nico, too broke to participate at the moment. Mother’s day and all that just having passed us by…
When do you think the shorty gonna be ready?
Here are the xhp35-HI tests I looked at:
Plus a few other sources here and there. I’m trying to figure out what the xhp35-HI is really capable of.
The part about losses is not so clear. I hear a bunch of confusing stuff. Like most reflectors only being 85% reflective and lenses being 97–98 clear. Texas_Ace says that xhp35-HI seem to suffer higher losses than other leds. It’s all a bit fuzzy in my mind.
By light box, do you mean a lumen measuring device like an integrating sphere? I just recently got a JoshK sphere, but I haven’t messed with it much. I’ve also got one of Texas_Ace’s lumen tubes coming my way, as well.
I’ve measured a few of my lights, but haven’t measured any raw leds.
Based on your experience, what are some realistic losses?
BTW, isn’t the TN42 only pushing 2A? The fact it has that much output just makes me scratch my head. Lol
Well, I resistor modded my TN42 so it wasn’t making 2A anymore.
THE Very Best lens can allow 98% light transmission, that’s the UCLp, very few are that good. The smaller glass UCL allows 99. But regular borofloat has a 10 loss and I’ve seen that on regular polycarbonate as well, literally a measured 11% loss of lumens out the front with a polycarbonate uncoated lens.
There’s really no need to sweat reflector loss as it’s the only way we get an out the front reading anyway, I mean, sure, there’s TIR’s but most of them are only around 80-85% efficient according to Ledil and Carclo and Fraen. Depending on design and emitter you sometimes see higher but not often. And of course unless you’re spending a fortune for top quality aspheric then you’ll also see a ton of losses there.
That said, I am measuring 1.05Mcd from a 124mm reflector with an XP-L HI emitter and that’s with the aforementioned Lexan Polycarbonate lens. Still trying to get Chris to cut a 130mm lens for me, he’s not the greatest at communication… it’ll happen sooner or later but ….
Please put me in for one.
Don’t worry, it won’t sell so fast. Most people already have BLF GT, so the attraction of MF04 can’t be very high.
Releasing product as soon as possible is very important, of course it has to be good and reliable product.
I think the TN42 throws so well partially due to the focusing, with the led flush with the reflector bottom.I am no expert on the subject but I can’t help but think even the GT may have more performance hidden it with the emitter recessed a few millimeters under the reflector rather than flush.
I think your missing the obvious. The shape of the reflector requires the emitter to be in a certain location. How high or low below the emitter the reflector goes is somewhat irrelevant. You can cut the bottom off of a reflector (the top, too) and still get good focus as long as you don’t change the emitter to reflector relationship, the focal point.
Here is picture that might help.
The parabolic shape of the reflector is specifically designed to have the emitter at a certain location. Now because we are using an emitter which has a die size of 2.35mm2 (not a perfect pin point source) not all of the light hits the reflector at a perfect angle. So you can adjust the reflector to emitter height by fractions of a millimeter up and down and get slightly different amounts of focus, but if you move it more than that you definitely will lose the focal point.
Also keep in mind the dispersal pattern or spatial distribution of the emitter. Output is strongest directory in front and tapers off as you get to 90° off center.
As with most things, especially on the internet, everyone you ask has a different answer and the right ones have a lot of leeway. 
These new reflector designs we are seeing with the emitter hole open large with no flat area as part of the reflector are supposedly cut off at the plane of the focal point, the centering ring is technically designed to fit the emitter such that the emitter will be flush with the surface of the centering ring and the step on the ring that holds the reflector fits a designed overshoot of the focal point…. by design and by formula this is supposed to be the sweet spot. There are critical factors that make or break the theories, as usual, and whether or not the manufacturer nailed the design parameter is what determines the success rate. Among other things. lol
Ordered!
Interested. I’m late to this.
Jason are you saying if the reflector size and shape was different by “x” amount here or there then it would have a bearing on where exactly the emitter should sit in order to achieve maximum performance ?
When someone designs a reflector, they have to choose a focal point for the emitter. The shape of the reflector is based on this focal point. If you look at the picture I posted earlier and look at the red lines, those lines represent a focused beam going straight out and if you follow those back they will always converge on a single focal point.
Scannerguy tested the BLF GT at BLF GT Worlds Farthest Throw LED Flashlight - YouTube. Calculated throwing distance of 1776,28 meter. Measured 49300 lux at 4 meters.
Does anyone know the exact LED bin or the color temp of it ?
That’s quite intriguing. So, let’s just imagine someone plans to mod the MF04 with an expensive CFT-90 emitter, probably a LED with another die size, it’s not just a matter of changing the LED and driver but also a matter of the right alignment of the LED in the reflector? The CFT-90 is supposed to make a larger spot on the BLF GT as far as I have learned. Besides that, I’m curious what kind of alternative emitters might be suitable for the MF04….like OBF or CFT-90.
4 meters are not far enough. I think his calculation is not really reliable.