Garry, That's exactly what I got
Agreed, Glenn! I would never use the copper tape as the adhesive layer, IMO, counteracts the benefit of using copper instead of straight aluminum strips with no adhesive. Your method of pure copper foil is the best of both worlds. 
Johnny, I agree aluminium foil would work much better than copper tape. Copper tape is designed for shielding electronics such as pickups and controls on guitars, etc, not for heat transfer..
LOL..I was looking at this on Ebay and saved it.. when suddenly it disappeared before my eyes...LOL..garryb must o hit the Buy It Now button..LOL
Got mine wrapped in aluminum and seems to do fine. Might snag some copper in a while.
Wasn't me! I swear! I just bookmarked it.
-Garry
been wrapping with aluminum foil for years, since the xre q5 and r2 dropins came out, i don't know if they needed it, but did so anyway. i know its probably been talked about many times now, what works best as a wrap, my friend insists on using aluminum tape, i've stuck with just foil, and have not even thought about the soda can thing, too much work and i don't think it'll conduct as good as the foil myself. now copper foil sounds good. But this is my notion, i wrap the dropin with regular foil or heavy duty foil, i wrap it nice and tight, and then force it into the host, i figure the foil will crumple and tighten around the dropin forming an even better and tighter filled gap in between the host and dropin, vs soda can aluminum, which may still have variances and air gaps because it won't conform as much as foil, and its damn hard to cut it down and remove the coating they put on the aluminum soda cans, so its easier to just wrap it with foil and probably better. i also feel aluminum foil works better than aluminum tape, because there is no adhesive, i don't know how thick the adhesive is, and whether it conducts heat at all, im sure the heat will move through it, but it may limit it just a little, but the upside to the tape is that, its taped onto the drop nicely and doesn't unravel like the foil does if you like to use the dropin in other hosts, but you may run into problems when you have host of different variances(tube size/diameter), i.e. going from a larger tube to a smaller one.
I use aluminum foil as well on mine. I'll fold the foil several times as neatly as possible to minimize wrinkles. I'll then adhere one end of the foil to the base of the dropin with a tiny strip of the aluminum tape, and then wrap the foil until it is thick enough to require force to press it into the head of the light. It makes it a pain to remove the drop-in, but does improve heat transfer. I ruined a reflector removing one because I had to grab it with pliers and twist and pry to get it out. At least I always have spare P60 reflectors in my kit...
I really like the 504B and the Sky Ray S-R5 hosts I purchased from MF as they are machined very closely in size to the dropin. It only takes a very thin layer of foil to make the dropin fit tightly. My old 501b took so much foil that I doubt it helped much. Plus it was only using an XR-E emitter...
I used the aluminum foil top from one of those family sized frozen dinner/meals.. Stouffers Enchiladas over Rice and Beans IIRC...LOL @about $12....I removed the dinners foil top to keep it clean and put a piece of regular light weight foil over the dinner to cook it....Eat it.. and then utilize that clean heavyweight primo foil...
It's much heavier than household foil and keeps its shape pretty well if you need to remove the head from the host.
I use this.
If you happen to use several hosts / dropins, I suggest to get whole reel of it.
( got reel, will sell couple of yards for actual cost if someone is in need )
This is adhesive.
I might say, that this is the MOST Wrinklefree tape I have used. Before, I used to order some from cpf seller but it was quite wrinkly...
Yes, there is an adhesive layer but it is very thin, just enough to hold tape in place.
I usually do 3.75 -> 4.50 rounds of tape on a basic Solarforce host. Sometimes it gets so well formed, that when removing lubed head of light, there´s an underpressure in light :D
I leave it so, that it can be pulled out by hand. Have had good results even with that tightness.
I have one of these & I like it.
But maybe there's something even better?
Custom build by e1320, or http://www.intl-outdoor.com/xml-u2-p60-dropin-module-p-336.html ?
Joel
This weekend I decided upgrade my UltraFire drop-in from Manafont with a modified Nanjg 105c because I was one of those unlucky few who received a MF UF drop-in with aps of:
High: +- 1.6 A
Medium: +- 0.5 A
Low: +- 0.15 A
(measured by a Fluke 177)
This is how the LED of the drop-in looks:
And this is the driver board used:
(anyone able to explain the driver board? Is it a linear direct drive?)
So after we've piggybacked 2 x 7135's to the 105c to make a 3.5A driver, we connected the LED and measured the modes:
High: +- 1.9 A
Medium: +- 0.6 A
Low: +- 0.08 A
We checked every solderpoint, and all looked good, but assumed we screwed up with the soldering, and connected a spare stock Nanjg 105c which should pull 2.8A on high. To our surprises we got exactly the same measurements. This was measured with only the LED, driver board and battery, no drop-in pill, host or anything else.
I have read a thread on BLF that the resistance in DMM cables can give untrue readings, but if that's the case, shouldn't the low and medium modes read correctly as (5/100 x 3.5) = 0.175A and (30/100 x 3.5) = 1.05A on the DMM?
So I'm really now starting to wonder what can be the issue. I have to assume now that my MF UF drop-in could well have been able to pull over 3A's. The only unchanged components is the LED and battery, and I've never heard of LED's not being able to take more current. So my TrustFire 2400mah Flames must either be dud's, or they're fakes 
They are literaly brand new (2 months), only been charged 3-4 times each and never discharged below 3.6v
Any thoughts or inputs?
Nope, It would read as a portion of the High Current Setting. In this case, about 5 and 30 percent of that number - 0.57 Amps and .095 Amps respectively.
The reason for this is that the driver uses PWM to control the brightness. It turns the circuit ON (High Mode) and Off (NO Current) very quickly. PWM is done very quickly, and your eyes average the output to make it look like it's only 5% as bright all the time, rather than 100% as bright 5% of the time.
Because of this, You get 1.9A when it's on, and 0.0A When it's off. Your numbers are pretty darn perfect. The Fluke meter (or any other DMM) does the same thing your eyes do, and it averages the current to display exactly what you're seeing. If you were measuring the current with a high-speed oscilloscope, you'd see bursts to 1.9A and troughs to 0A - but again, if you averaged those readings across time, you'd get .57A and .095A
PPtk
I guess I'm a butthead because I gave up on the aluminum/copper foil wrap method and I'm running my drop-ins naked now. I came to the conclusion that the concept of the drop-in is convenience so therefore I'm going with total plug 'n play now. I don't operate my flashlights at such long duration's so I'll just risk the emitter being fried. Maybe it's just an OCD thing for me 
Thanks for that PPtk. So does that still mean it could either be the battery or the Fluke reading incorrectly? What can I do to get a more accurate reading?
It's impossible to know for sure without seeing it, but my suspicion really would be the DMM leads.
Have any nice thick wire? 10..12..14Ga? Doesn't matter what kind..
If you do, cut two pieces about a foot long each. Strip off about 1/2" from one end of each piece, and shove it in the holes of the DMM where the leads should usually go. Strip just enough of the other end to be able to press it against the back of the battery and the flashlight tube. None of these voltages are ANYWHERE NEAR enough to hurt you - so don't worry about touching the wires.
That's it.. Pretend the wires are the DMM probes, and stick them on the battery and the tube - see if your readings change - hopefully higher. If they get even a bit higher - not necessarily all the way to 3.5A, but say, to 2.5A - then I'm 99.99% certain that its the DMM leads causing your measurement error.
PPtk
I will also add that it will be helpful to "tin" the ends of those wires (ie. apply solder so the individual strands aren't coming apart). I did this trick with my meter (except that I bought banana plug ends to solder on for the meter connection) and saw quite a large increase in my readings. In that link I just jammed in some 14 gauge home electrical wire. Since then I made my own test leads using regular 12 gauge wire. Also learned that one of my cheap meters is junk and should never be used for current readings.
-Garry
@Lothar
My UF MF XML dropin measures 3+A with no issues. I found that the single 18650 cell I got from DD with my $5 502b host could only push the amount of current you are describing. I eventually discarded that cell and am using only cells capable of providing the higher amount of current.
If you have a spare XM-L emitter, try a Direct Drive connection and test the current your cell is able to provide in that configuration. My first suspicion would be the cell.
<edited to add>My DMM is a cheap older $12 model with standard leads, and is still able to read the current accurately.
I also would try chaging the DMM lead first. They may be resisting the current during testing.
I've tested my cheap DMM leads for resistance, they're measured around 1.8ohm. Considering we're only using a lowly 3.7V voltage, that's a wee bit too high.
On the other hand, a simple household wire 1.25mm2 just pushed tightly into the probe gave 0.2ohm, much much lower resistance.
As expected, when testing tailcap current, the cheap lead only gave around 1.4A for the MF drop-in, and the household wires gave 3.6A.
Ok guys, I've got some updates. I measured the cell we used to test the new Nanjg 105c and it was only 3.7v, 
. My used and charged cells must have gotten mixed up 
. Charged the cell fully and let it rest for a day. Resting voltage was 4.15v, and here are my results.
Manafont driver board, full battery (done a few weeks ago), thin cheap dmm lead: High: 1.6-1.7A
Nanjg 105c driver board, full battery (4.15v), thin cheap dmm lead: High: 2.4A
Nanjg 105c driver board, full battery (4.15v), thick 6mm copper wire: High: 3.35A
Ok cool, so the Flames are able to supply the current, and my new 3.5A board is working. The guestion I can't answer now, is whether my original would have been able to pull over 3A's. But I'm pretty sure when we measured it with full batteries a few weeks ago with my cheapo dmm and the Fluke, we measured 1.6 - 1.7A.
I'll take some beamshots tonight so that I can compare it with some I took a while back of the original board.
Have you added (stacked) 7135 chips to the Nanjg 105C?