Looks almost exactly halfway between a Bowie and a machete, both blade and handle. I would imagine that the pattern on the scales would almost immediately lead to thumb blisters if used for chopping though
Itās not that bad. The handles are micarta and the shape lets you choke back a bit. Still if itās a lot of chopping, light gloves are great, but thats the same with anything. I have some with rubberized handles (resperine c) which takes out some of the vibration.
Wonder maybe how 4 of the SST-40's at 6500K would look in tint. They are XM footprints, so, dang - we didn't do the double XM/XP deed for the MCPCB, but could use 16 or 20's individually. Could probably get 8,000 lumens out of it though 
.
The new Q8 MCPCB's are 2 mm thick, so probably need a little backing on the 16/20 MCPCB's to fit, or work out something else.
No worries, i had to sleep on it to figure it out and learned something. 
I heard of high gain antenna breaking the inverse square law but i may have misunderstood. I was under the impression the exponent would shrink as you narrow the beam - until the distance doesnāt matter anymore. Still scratching my head about the limit though.
seems this light is never going to happenā¦ā¦
Two things might make ābreakā the law here:
- The inverse square law works for a perfect cone. I think a flashlightās beam is closer to a truncated cone, with the top being the size of the reflector. So it would probably work better by calculating from a point some distance behind the flashlight, where the coneās apex would be. This would explain why people get better throw readings by measuring a bit further from the light (I remember reading about that being the case anyway).
- Diffusion from the air can change the shape of the beam to something which is not a cone, making the law somewhat wrong. The extreme case of this is a foggy night.
Antennas have even more complex beam patterns than flashlights so the inverse square law is only a rough approximation which works on a large scale (ie. itās probably true if you measure the signal from 1, 2 and 4 km but not from 1, 2 and 4 meters for a TV antenna).
OK, for those who like the idea of giving an award to manufacturers who meet spec and donāt let quality fade away ā hereās a dedicated thread.
Letās figure out who did it right and how to reward them.
Meeting spec; not fading away ā rewarding light manufacturers
Iām pretty sure it will.
Fixed it, the result of measuring from a greater distance is due to focus on a thrower being further outā¦ somewhat like sighting in a gun, itās a fixed point that itās sweet at and changes closer or further away. Similarly, tuning the focus to get the most throw the light really isnāt at itās best until fairly far away, more so than the normal 5M test distances and in some cases all the way out to 30M or so.
Well would be such a shame if it didnāt. Knowing Thorfire we will receive an email stating they are ready out of the blue (and donāt forget listing on BG is prepared , we have seen videos and pics of manufacturing, so it would be so strange if it wouldnāt happen.)
It is just as before , it is not going fast
Miller, out of curiosity, is Lumintop any different? I know thusfar they are much faster, but do they communicate well? (Iām in the Q8 team but not in one of the BLF-Lumintop cooperations).
Yes there is a difference, but that could very well be because we use an excel sheet with all comments, so LT answers in the next row, making it easy to see how things are and hard to miss things.
Certainly something we will be doing for future projects.
And I kind of want TF to do the Q16 making it possible to test if this works better then the avalanche of emails we have running for the Q8 
Still want a Q4 with Eneloops.
Btw, has anyone ever considered a Q2, a flashlight on 4 AAA Eneloops with a Carclo quad? 7cm long, 3cm diameter (so slightly larger than a 26650) With 750 mAh it could run 2 amps for a bit less than half an hour, use 4 XP-E2 Torch leds and get 500 lumen OTF in a beautiful spot (XP-E and Carclo 10507 match very well). Easy to make versions with XP-E2 colour as well.
I know that one Aspire 18350 cell will blow it away in size, capacity and amps (in fact it is a less capable D4) but the point is safe chemistry that is universally available.
Yeah me too
And good idea a Q2
It would basically be the same driver as the Q4 so if a good driver can be done I see no reason not to go for it.
Yes, even the battery tube hooked to a D4 would already work.
Huh, does it work on 1,2-1,5V?
What MCU is that? Interesting!
No, the four Eneloops should be in series, for 4.8V nominal. It has a bit more overhead voltage than a li-ion, but for a common FET-driver that should be fine, and thereās losses in the battery carrier too.
Ah well hmm for me Q is cells in quad series, meaning the long wished for BLF AA/AAA boost driver for the Q4 and now Q2.
I find it really strange one can buy a $2 zoomie accepting AA and 14500 but we as a whole would not come up with a driver.
Iād rather have the Q4 and Q2 have a single LED then a single cell (which four cells in series would be for the driver)
Wait, now there is talk of Q2, Q4, Q16?
Can someone translate for me please, which are real things, which are speculation or planned, and what is understood by those terms?
If Q4 is quad series 4x18650, what is Q2, it canāt be a quad with 2 cells? I am not standing under. Or is quad meaning 4 LEDs and 4 = 4 cells?