Well, there’s no harm in tweaking up the throw in a flooder. I personally like a balanced beam profile between flood and throw. Where I live, there’s really no use for too tight of a beam or too wide of a beam. There’s no distance that I need to see that is long enough to need the throw, yet a flood would waste a lot of light because most of it won’t hit what I’m trying to look at, and washing everything around me can be too distracting. For that reason, making a flooder more throwy can be a good way to get most of the light directed toward the target, while also being wide enough to light the whole target. With the right balance, one could use a lower light level, which means longer run-times.
But, if one really wanted to make it a lot more throwy, they should use a smaller die, like XP-G2 or XP-G3. IIRC, it has been said that the reflectors in this light will be about the size of C8 reflectors. If that’s true, one could conceivably have a very throwy flooder, if they wanted to.
Always about the individual perspective, isn’t it?
XP-G2’s have a high Vf when pushed, might be interesting to see XP-G3’s in a light like this, I know they can take a lot more amperage and I’ve seen a nice tint from an S5 3B (my little Quad) I’m getting 2600+ lumens on an 18350 cell. (which reminds me, need to check it on an 18650…)
Certainly hope so. Yet pushing does not seem to speed things up.
So other then “we get there when we get there” is all that can be said.
I really hope this stage of getting our ideas across and worked into digital Q8s is going to prove to take the longest.
We received new CAD designs and the outside was almost correct!
apart from the button not fully integrated looking from the side (engineering of Thorfire has already confirmed they get it and will correct it.
Also after lots of CADs received without an integrated shelf the one before the last had one and the last had a thicker one.
Also after lots of CADs without a tripod mounting hole the last two have it!
And the driver retainer ring is now present.
Tom has send some Q8 Narsil prototypes to BLFers based on the last decided hardware for testing.
And we are now getting into it the reflector base and ledboard.
Ahhh - a Shocker has C8 size reflectors. The 4X SRK lights reflectors are a little bigger than an S2 EDC type. 3X SRK's do better in throw, 5X do less in throw - the more you pack in to the same space, the smaller they are. However as you add reflectors, you add more output, so the extra output adds to throw. My 5X's throw isn't that bad actually. We talked about all these variations, and felt the 4X was a good compromise of power/amps/cost, flood and throw. Also I prefer the beam pattern of a 4X compared to a 5X - the 5X is heavily clover leafed where the 4X seems milder to me, least with my 5,000+ lumens 4X and 5X SRK clones.
We discussed early on all emitter options in this thread and outside. XPL HD with an XP footprint seemed the most preferred. Again, good compromise between flood and throw, and a few choices for swapping out for other XP's.
The fins aught to be tapered narrower at the tip to make more space for air flow between them, and for IR to escape. I think that may also be quicker to do in mass production. If something is going to be square, or closer to it, it should be the threads.
I like that the “empty” space on the driver is copper. Better cooling and better for high frequency electromagnetic interference.
I agree with DavidEF about the balanced beam profile. Throwy flooders are more useful for me. Pure flood seems to be a waste and while tremendous throw is awesome, I can’t think of a time when I have needed to light up something 1/2 a mile away.
We cannot show the battery tube and tail since that is Thorfire design.
Cross section
At last, the outside of the head is almost good. Check the minor problem with the button not being integrated looking from the side.
.
Some details showing a driver retainer ring, the LEDboard.
NOTE: the outer edges on for example the fins (left) now nice and smoothly rounded.
Yesterday the head of engineering department was very responsive.
They are going to correct the button.
Also the bezel was corrected closer to the result of the poll (though we will ask for a flatter one)
.
.
Then, DO NOT BE STARTLED BY THIS PIC, read the text below it first
It startled me, that is for sure.
But Daniel was responsive so we could email directly and explain why copper is needed and finally got this reaction:
The strong idea is that the board has direct thermal paths for the middle pad of the led. We know the costs for such a large quad DTP board and it seems feasable for this light within the price we are aiming at. It is something we do not have an affirmation from Thorfire about yet (every detail goes with repeated requests from our side, followed by absent or incomplete design suggestions by Thorfire, but in the end things are happening).
If in the end a DTP board is not happening (we consider that as a fail from our side, and we will make sure that Thorfire knows that adding a DTP board will sell way more flashlights), we make the board design such that the heat transfer is maximised for that sub-optimal situation. A copper board does help somewhat compared to aluminium. Of course the performance must be good enough to go forth with that option.
(which reminds me, need to check it on an 18650…)
