I actually haven’t tried a clean de-dome, only shaved an HD. KD has racing fuel, maybe that’s how he did it… surely he’ll tell! 
Yep Racing Fuel C14+ …….
Got a few XHP35HD de-domed for back ups just in case! These are CW 6500K de-domed to check for tint shift? De-domed a few XHP70’s and have them in a couple lights also.
Dang, that's nice! Wonder if my ZEP degreaser would work on them... It's been great on regular LED's - dedomes in 8-12 minutes. At about 7-8 minutes, you here a "pop" when the first break in the dome occurs - pretty cool.
I gotta ask around bout the C14+. I built 3 Y3's up for a guy at work who races, think stock cars. Also got a neighbor who has a fully worked Chevelle that can rattle our house at 20 MPH goin down the block. Even if the don't have any, they might know where I can borrow a cup or so.
Then, a 13cm diameter, 4cm deep reflector will throw more than 13cm diameter, 10cm deep reflector? And have more spill at the same time? How come the Jacob A60 was such a good thrower with the deep reflector, and the was the ultimate buy? If it is not a problem, I am really interested in the logic.
That’s something you will need advanced calculations to figure out. I was considering writing a program to calculate this but currently I have a lot of work in school and wouldn’t be able to, maybe in the future.
Basically you need to take a point on the reflector, analyze the projection of the LED die onto that point based on the LED’s surface brightness, then calculate the projected image at a certain distance (like 100m or something for example) due to that point, then do this for at least a few million points on the surface of the reflector. Take the sum of all the projections at that 100m and you will end up with a spot profile and intensity at all the points on the spot.
(like this but with mathematically calculated intensity at every point)
With a program it would be easy to vary the diameter of reflector, depth of reflector, and size of the LED to find exactly where the theoretical max is achieved.
Stuff like surface quality of the reflector or efficiency losses would also need to be factored in somehow, probably at the time the calculation is made for the light hitting a point on the reflector.
I looked online and found no programs written to do this, but maybe with matlab or something it would be possible to make. Usually manufacturers just make several prototypes and pick the best performing one rather than tediously calculate a theoretical maximum which may or may not have a confound variable (aka something else that will affect the real world results that you didnt account for)
Enderman
Here is one simple test from Djozz:
It seems that the outer part does the throwing.
Yes that’s because the outer part is farther from the LED than the inner part is.
The inner part still focuses light forward which adds to the throw/lux and also needs to be calculated.
Also, making the LED smaller will reduce this “fuzzy” effect, but almost nobody wants an XP-G2 or even an XP-L in the GT.
I think I got the point after reading that topic. The intensity allegedly stays the same, but the form of the beam changes between corona and spill. Dr Jones has made something resembling a calculator as I see, and can help a lot.
But, Since the reflector is more or less hard to find, the choice is very limited. Bordering on irrelevant if the throw is maximized. :student:
I was looking for more advanced ray tracers, most of them are paid and really expensive meant for professional use, but there are a few free options I might try out.
And what do you mean by “hard to find” reflector? You mean how they are trying to find a source of reflector for the GT?
I was thinking more about calculating an optimized reflector and then getting it custom built by phoenix or optiforms, obviously for personal use, since it would cost more than the entire GT flashlight 
Yes.
And if the throw is the same, then the reflector does not matter a lot. All we need is a 12-13cm parabolic reflector. If it can be shallower then 15-20cm is not out of the question also. Anyone will do.
Yeah Jack has done a lot of translations for the Q8.
When we have a better grasp of the specs I will again ask him to translate it (post already reserved) He runs it by a Chinese staffso we know those translations are of excellent quality.
Asking to really call or email is much more work and cannot be done at a moment of hoosing or after Chinese working hours so I a hesitant to ask this.
.
.
.
.
Googling pointed me to this software on so many pages, I highly doubt they are interested in doing something, but what the heck, I just send the the following mail via their online form:
_Hi there,
Is there somebody who really likes/loves flashlights working at your company?
If so could you give me the phone number and/or email so i can get in touch?
Thanks and regards_
.
.
.
.
You should sell little cannisters of that racing fuel for all to de dedome 
Very interesting what your finding will be testing it with the Thrunite light!
.
.
.
.
OP list updated and start of groups forfuture mass PM made.
I think all the ones believing more reflector depth increases throw have been convinced it's not true, thanks to this: https://budgetlightforum.com/t/-/11947/14
I happen to believe it’s both diameter AND depth that give max throw. The lights I have that hit the mile mark prove it out…
Diameter—-Lux
Depth—- Spotdiameter
Thats it.
Why must this flashlight be so long ?
It makes it more expensive.
You need more money for the batteries.
No advantage,only run time,but who needs that ?
I belived that here is the BLF,
It seems here are all Dagobert Ducks,
no prob with the Bucks.
Regards Xandre
I'll take two :) I'm so excited for this one!
It’s tough to prove that hypothesis because of how many variables that are in play. There are numerous things that could make a light throw further than another (you know that), the light having a deeper reflector could very well just be a coincidence.
Well, one thing we do know. A deeper reflector reduces spill. If this is to be a specialized ultra thrower, we should cut the spill. Let’s not mess around with this.
Once again, the price point goal is $100, with the long tube and 2 battery carriers.
You can also only use 4 batteries if you want, you do not have to use all 8.
But what is the advantage? Is less pill for sure better? We do know that it would make the light longer, heavier, and a little more expensive to produce.
I say go for a ‘traditional’ ratio of length/diameter, something in the middle.
That is right,
but I have to pay for and I really
do not like ,to have some “extras” to rest and rott at my room.
2 or 4S is the key at the moment.
But 8 batteries is going over the point.
But will buy it,cause of the reflector diameter.
Regards Xandre