# Custom 3" C Turbo Head interest and question...



## Swagg (Feb 4, 2010)

Ok so I see guys that have the old Surefire 3" Smooth Turbo Head that rave about them but I can't seem to get my hands on one. So in true CPF fashion I think I'm going to get one built by a friend of mine that does this stuff all day(not for lights of course). He said he can machine anything, even in Ti which he has laying around! 

So here is what I need to get started: Since I don't have a 3" turbo head to look at I'm hoping someone on here can give me some basic info. Like what's the depth and angle of the reflector? Basically all the important measurements. I want to have my buddy build a head that is C compatible, we could also make it M compatible and use a C to M adapter, smooth or light stipple, an option of flat and crenellated SS bezel, 3 inch for max throw to work on my Surefire, Leef and FM lights. The head would be Al so we can get HA nat and black done.

Now, if there is some interest he's willing to make a bunch of these. I'm hoping we can get a run of 25 and then go from there. What do ya'll think?


----------



## redcar (Feb 4, 2010)

I might be interested in one, according to price and if the setup would allow the use of standard Surefire bulbs for the M4 and M6.

Redd


----------



## Justin Case (Feb 4, 2010)

I would be more interested in a $100 SRTH clone, except with a borofloat window instead of the Lexan (and a removable retaining ring to hold the window in place). A 3" diameter TH is 1.44X larger in circular area than a 2.5" TH. The 3" size most likely will be very inconvenient for any sort of carry, while the 2.5" SRTH is carryable in an outer garment pocket.


----------



## tx101 (Feb 4, 2010)

Im interested ...... depending on price


----------



## merrimac (Feb 4, 2010)

tx101 said:


> Im interested ...... depending on price


very interested for m4/m6 and also a C cell [email protected]


----------



## kakster (Feb 4, 2010)

Interested too.

Where are you based?

I have one of the 3" T heads i can loan you to make the required measurements.


----------



## Swagg (Feb 4, 2010)

kakster said:


> Interested too.
> 
> Where are you based?
> 
> I have one of the 3" T heads i can loan you to make the required measurements.



Man that would be great! I'm in Tulsa and I would pay for shipping of course.


----------



## kakster (Feb 4, 2010)

PM me your address, i'll get it in the post in the next couple of days.


----------



## Swagg (Feb 4, 2010)

I'm thinking we can use LF M bulb assemblies, SF bulb assemblies or FM's bi pin holder. That way it should be pretty unlimited. 

I'm open to making a SRTH Clone(if that's higher demand) but I'm leaning toward a little bit more custom look while not wasting space, I don't want this to be needlessly large. Now I need to track down a glass/lens maker...


----------



## Swagg (Feb 4, 2010)

Does anyone know if SF polishes their Pyrex lenses and if so it polished on both sides?


----------



## kakster (Feb 4, 2010)

Not sure if they're polished, id guess yes.

They are definetely treated on both sides with anti-reflective coating. If you plan to stick as close as possible to the original surefire design, you may want to reconsider using a glass lens. 

These turboheads are extremely lightweight in design, made from a single piece of aluminium with the outside annodized and the inside coated with whatever they use for reflector coatings, no separate reflector module as seen in the current KT designs. 

A 3" glass lens would have to be fairly thick and heavy, not to mention the additional weight incurred by the retaining ring and threads required. The old style turboheads simply use a press-fit lexan lens.


----------



## tx101 (Feb 4, 2010)

Swagg said:


> I'm thinking we can use LF M bulb assemblies, SF bulb assemblies or FM's bi pin holder. That way it should be pretty unlimited.
> 
> I'm open to making a SRTH Clone(if that's higher demand) but I'm leaning toward a little bit more custom look while not wasting space, I don't want this to be needlessly large. _*Now I need to track down a glass/lens maker*_...




Give member LED Zeppelin a PM.
I remember him posting that he had some custom M6 lens made


----------



## Dizos (Feb 4, 2010)

Could a turbohead be designed to accept a P60 sized module?


----------



## Swagg (Feb 4, 2010)

kakster said:


> Not sure if they're polished, id guess yes.
> 
> They are definetely treated on both sides with anti-reflective coating. If you plan to stick as close as possible to the original surefire design, you may want to reconsider using a glass lens.
> 
> ...




I meant Pyrex, I think SF uses Pyrex now but not sure what the Turbo Head used...


----------



## Dioni (Feb 4, 2010)

Dizos said:


> Could a turbohead be designed to accept a P60 sized module?


 
I think not, since P60 reflector uses the main light emitted by the bulb. So there is not much remaining light left to utilize.


----------



## Dioni (Feb 4, 2010)

Interesting thread!


----------



## Steve in SoCal (Feb 4, 2010)

I love the idea of a custom oversized turbohead for M or C series Surefires. :thumbsup: Since the reflector is probably the more specialized part of the head it might be a good idea to start with a reflector and build an oversized turbo-head around it. Machining the head is only one part of the process. One of the advertisers on CPF produces standard and custom reflectors that may be useful. 

http://www.phoenixelectroforms.com/parabolic.html

I'm not sure of the overall complexity of this project but I would assume there is a reason why FiveMega charges $193 for one of his custom turboheads. Even assuming he gets a good markup it must not be cheap to produce this type of custom product.


----------



## Swagg (Feb 4, 2010)

Steve in SoCal said:


> I love the idea of a custom oversized turbohead for M or C series Surefires. :thumbsup: Since the reflector is probably the more specialized part of the head it might be a good idea to start with a reflector and build an oversized turbo-head around it. Machining the head is only one part of the process. One of the advertisers on CPF produces standard and custom reflectors that may be useful.
> 
> http://www.phoenixelectroforms.com/parabolic.html
> 
> I'm not sure of the overall complexity of this project but I would assume there is a reason why FiveMega charges $193 for one of his custom turboheads. Even assuming he gets a good markup it must not be cheap to produce this type of custom product.



That was exactly my thought, focus on the reflector and make the head around that. Thanks for the info!


----------



## alantch (Feb 4, 2010)

Interested in one depending on price. Would prefer it to be M-series compatible which would enable it to be also used on the C/P/Z bodies with the C2M adapter.


----------



## Swagg (Feb 4, 2010)

alantch said:


> Interested in one depending on price. Would prefer it to be M-series compatible which would enable it to be also used on the C/P/Z bodies with the C2M adapter.



Yeah I'm leaning this way myself. I would make the adapter to match perfectly so nothing would look out of place, I don't want a frankenstein light!


----------



## bigchelis (Feb 4, 2010)

I would be in for one 3in Turbo head:thumbsup: It would look nice on a 6P w/ 18650 extentions.


----------



## Justin Case (Feb 4, 2010)

Swagg said:


> Yeah I'm leaning this way myself. I would make the adapter to match perfectly so nothing would look out of place, I don't want a frankenstein light!



I don't have hard data on relative numbers, but the SF 6P and other members of the Classic family have been on the market for decades. Thus, my guess is that a C compatible TH would address the largest segment of the SF market. I would construct an adapter so that a C threaded TH would fit an M host, not the other way around.

The other issue is the reflector. The advantages of the SRTH over the other SF C THs (the KT1/2) are that the SRTH is light and compact and the SRTH out-throws the newer SF THs. If your design's reflector can't outperform a KT1/2 or KT4, and by a substantial margin considering you are potentially dramatically increasing the volume of the TH, then your new TH is not going to be successful.

IMO, the benchmark to beat is the SRTH. Whatever volume/weight/circular area/etc ratio increase you have, you had better beat the SRTH by at least that much in performance.


----------



## Justin Case (Feb 4, 2010)

Dizos said:


> Could a turbohead be designed to accept a P60 sized module?



Yes, in a way. The OpticsHQ TLS TX3 TH uses a design that can accept a standard P60 brass pill.

But then your TH won't be compatible with standard SF TH lamp towers.

A possible solution would be to make a solid metal (pick your favorite -- aluminum, copper, brass, ...) filler piece that screws into where the pill goes. The filler piece has a hole in it with the correct diameter to accept SF lamp towers (IIRC, about 0.373" diam) and the right thickness/shape so that the tower inserts the filament or LED at the correct focus height for the reflector.

The FiveMega Deep Turbo C Head is designed to take P60 lamps completely. So that is another approach, but I think that the performance you get will depend on the P60 reflector shape and how well it matches the TH. I doubt you can develop a universal TH reflector that will work well with all P60 style lamps, much less fit all of them.


----------



## Swagg (Feb 4, 2010)

Justin Case said:


> IMO, the benchmark to beat is the SRTH. Whatever volume/weight/circular area/etc ratio increase you have, you had better beat the SRTH by at least that much in performance.



Since you can't get the SRTH's anymore I was wanting to build something comparable/same performance. Another CPFer was kind enough to be sending me his to help in the construction of mine. One plus I see in a new design is that we can make custom bezels and lens retainers with SS or Ti. My plan though is because of the overall diameter is so large, keep it as small everywhere else I can similar to the build of the original SRTH. IF we beat it then great!


----------



## Swagg (Feb 4, 2010)

Justin Case said:


> Thus, my guess is that a C compatible TH would address the largest segment of the SF market. I would construct an adapter so that a C threaded TH would fit an M host, not the other way around.



Interesting approach, I haven't heard of such an adaptor so I wasn't thinking in that vein...I've seen M to C adaptors and it would be simple to make but I'll put some thought into your suggestion. But would it really matter? I mean if it works and looks great do we need to re-invent the wheel? I'm up for it if this orientation turns out to be the demand.


----------



## Justin Case (Feb 4, 2010)

Extra parts needed = extra cost to the buyer. Thus, I would target the largest customer base (those folks who own SF Classic series hosts) with a C compatible TH so that they do not have to buy extra parts (an adapter to fit an M TH to a C host). By making a C TH to M host adapter, you cover the Millennium customer base, which is a higher end product anyway with owners who are perhaps more willing to pay an extra $20 or whatever for an adapter.

I suppose it is conceivable that you want to charge your largest customer base a higher price to generate greater overall income. But there is some balance between higher price*lower sales volume vs lower price*higher sales volume.

I have both C and Millennium threaded hosts, so either way I will need some sort of adapter.


----------



## Justin Case (Feb 4, 2010)

Swagg said:


> Since you can't get the SRTH's anymore I was wanting to build something comparable/same performance. Another CPFer was kind enough to be sending me his to help in the construction of mine. One plus I see in a new design is that we can make custom bezels and lens retainers with SS or Ti. My plan though is because of the overall diameter is so large, keep it as small everywhere else I can similar to the build of the original SRTH. IF we beat it then great!



If your price is disproportionately higher than a KT1/2, then equal performance with an SRTH in a much bigger package and a higher price IMO isn't going to cut it. I'd rather buy a KT1/2. If you sell your 3" TH for only a small premium over a KT1/2, then perhaps equal performance with an SRTH might be compelling enough to offset the larger size and higher price.

IMO, the performance target (at least in terms of light output/beam pattern) is the SRTH. The sales target is the KT1/2.

If you envision capturing the LED crowd, then the TH also must have heat sinking capability to run something like an MC-E at full power without suffering from excessive heat build-up.


----------



## Swagg (Feb 4, 2010)

Justin Case said:


> I suppose it is conceivable that you want to charge your largest customer base a higher price to generate greater overall income. But there is some balance between higher price*lower sales volume vs lower price*higher sales volume.



I wouldn't make this to earn tons of money, thats what I have a job for! I'm just trying to fill a need I have in my collection which might be a need for others as well. You've got some good ideas on this-keep them coming! In the end I just want the best product possible at a great price.

You might be tipping me to go straight C threads though then maybe the adaptor to M body. Actually, I don't even own any M bodies right now anyway!


----------



## Swagg (Feb 4, 2010)

Justin Case said:


> If you envision capturing the LED crowd, then the TH also must have heat sinking capability to run something like an MC-E at full power without suffering from excessive heat build-up.



So the idea here would be for the reflector to make good area contact to the body or head so that heat could transfer to that, so then maybe some finning on the head to then dissapate the heat, right?


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Feb 6, 2010)

Swagg said:


> I meant Pyrex, I think SF uses Pyrex now but not sure what the Turbo Head used...


SureFire now uses Borofloat.


----------



## maxspeeds (Feb 6, 2010)

Justin Case said:


> I would be more interested in a $100 SRTH clone, except with a borofloat window instead of the Lexan (and a removable retaining ring to hold the window in place). A 3" diameter TH is 1.44X larger in circular area than a 2.5" TH. The 3" size most likely will be very inconvenient for any sort of carry, while the 2.5" SRTH is carryable in an outer garment pocket.



I'm with Justin. A 2.5" SRTH clone would be have much more utility and carryable than a 3" head. Also, none of surefire's current filters would work on this head. 

Please consider making a 2.5" SRTH clone


----------



## Justin Case (Feb 6, 2010)

Swagg said:


> So the idea here would be for the reflector to make good area contact to the body or head so that heat could transfer to that, so then maybe some finning on the head to then dissapate the heat, right?



That's definitely one workable method. The reflector probably has to make the contact to the shell of the head, which would then dissipate the heat to the environment. This is probably why the shock-resistant KT4 TH shows poorer heat sinking capability than the non-shock THs like the SRTH, TRTH, and KT1. The reflector isn't going to contact the flashlight body directly. The LED tower is in the way and is making contact through its outer spring. The shell of the head also contacts the flashlight body since that's what screws into the "neck".


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Feb 6, 2010)

maxspeeds said:


> I'm with Justin.* A 2.5" SRTH clone would be have much more utility and carryable than a 3" head*. Also, none of surefire's current filters would work on this head.
> 
> Please consider making a 2.5" SRTH clone


 
Boring. :thumbsdow

That wouldn't out throw the KT1/KT2 and the current SF Turboheads aren't exactly pocket lights anyway. Half an inch would not make a difference. I believe that the vast majority of people looking for Turboheads want them as dedicated throwers. You would not use these lights to search for stuff in your backpack or in the car glove box, would you? And besides that, don't you have smaller lights for your floody needs? I see no valid reason to cripple a thrower with great potential in order to save half an inch in diameter. Just do a poll and you'll see that a larger Turbohead would easily outsell a Turbohead that is simliar to the current SureFire THs. Just my 0.2 lumens.


----------



## Swagg (Feb 6, 2010)

Yeah my original intention was to make a thrower that isn't really obtainable right now, if you want the 2.5 then SF already makes those. I'll be sticking with the 3" head, I mean if I'm going to make a thrower then I want it for throwing purposes!


----------



## Justin Case (Feb 6, 2010)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> Boring. :thumbsdow
> 
> That wouldn't out throw the KT1/KT2 and the current SF Turboheads aren't exactly pocket lights anyway. Half an inch would not make a difference. I believe that the vast majority of people looking for Turboheads want them as dedicated throwers. You would not use these lights to search for stuff in your backpack or in the car glove box, would you? And besides that, don't you have smaller lights for your floody needs? I see no valid reason to cripple a thrower with great potential in order to save half an inch in diameter. Just do a poll and you'll see that a larger Turbohead would easily outsell a Turbohead that is simliar to the current SureFire THs. Just my 0.2 lumens.



Fact -- every LED turbo tower I've built has significantly better throw in an SRTH than a KT1/2 and KT4. That covers Cree MC-Es, Cree XP-Gs, and Seoul P4s.

I daily carry an FM 1xIMR26500 with SRTH in an outer garment that has a large inside pocket. The SRTH is pretty much at the limit of comfortable carry. A larger TH will be undesirable IMO. I probably would not buy one. Not even for night stand use, because I can use smooth reflectored lights if I want throw. Or the Mag623 that I'm building.

You can speculate all you want, but my opinions are based on real measurements and actual daily carry experience.

Yes, I have a smaller-headed, XP-G mod'ed SF U2A for pocket carry and lower level illumination tasks. I use the SRTH for my daily carry, dedicated thrower. If I could buy more SRTHs at the same price as the current SF THs, I would. Certainly, I would buy an SRTH over any KT1/2 or KT4. And I have a lot of those, simply because SRTHs are not readily available. I just saw one on the Marketplace priced at over $200 and it sold almost immediately.

An SRTH clone would not be similar to "current SureFire THs". It would be better than the current ones, as represented by the KT1/2 and KT4. It would be lighter and a better thrower. Relative to a KT4, it would have better heat sinking. It would work better with LED towers if the reflector is optimized for an LED's radiation pattern.


----------



## Justin Case (Feb 6, 2010)

Whatever size TH you decide on, you might also think about whether you want to optimize the reflector for an incandescent lamp tower or an LED tower or have one model of each. The current SF THs are designed for incandescents, but they do work quite well with LEDs. Just probably not optimally.


----------



## Swagg (Feb 6, 2010)

Well I don't have much experience with LED's. My machinist is an LED guy and I'm an incan guy...I'm not really sure what makes for a great LED reflector.

I have an SRTH coming that I'll use in research to help in my build for this head so we'll see what happens when my machinist and I get my hands on that next week.


----------



## Justin Case (Feb 6, 2010)

An incandescent throws light in a 360 degree solid angle. An LED does not. The reflector design should account for that different radiation pattern.


----------



## Swagg (Feb 7, 2010)

Update: I'm from Louisiana so Geaux Saints!!!!

AND while I'm still gonna make the 3 inch TH my machinist said he wouldn't mind at all making a clone of the SRTH as well. We could offer both for sell as long as there is demand. Hopefully this week we will start getting a ballpark for cost. We are also starting research on reflectors ie shape/depth/angle for the 3". Any help/advice in that department would be much appreciated.

Have a great night guys!


----------



## ampdude (Feb 8, 2010)

Dizos said:


> Could a turbohead be designed to accept a P60 sized module?



FiveMega makes one. But according to what I read, as far as Surefire stock incan lamps it only works with P90's and P91's. He says the angle of reflection is wrong for use with the P61. I don't know about the P60.

By the way, Lumens Factory is planning on bringing out a SRTH clone this Spring. I'll be watching both threads, thanks for trying this out. I'm sure I would be interested in both of them if they are true SRTH clones.


----------



## Swagg (Feb 9, 2010)

ampdude said:


> By the way, Lumens Factory is planning on bringing out a SRTH clone this Spring. I'll be watching both threads, thanks for trying this out. I'm sure I would be interested in both of them if they are true SRTH clones.



Yeah my main goal is the 3" TH but the clone will happen just because the machinist wants the challenge. He said lets do both I like the challenge!

As far as the "true SRTH clones" part goes, is that including style and performance or just performance? We can give it a slightly different look like adding an SS or Ti bezel, or finning or grooves...or it could be an exact copy.


----------



## maxspeeds (Feb 9, 2010)

Be careful of exact copying. Surefire has numerous patents on each light that they produce.


----------



## Justin Case (Feb 9, 2010)

ampdude said:


> FiveMega makes one. But according to what I read, as far as Surefire stock incan lamps it only works with P90's and P91's. He says the angle of reflection is wrong for use with the P61. I don't know about the P60.
> 
> By the way, Lumens Factory is planning on bringing out a SRTH clone this Spring. I'll be watching both threads, thanks for trying this out. I'm sure I would be interested in both of them if they are true SRTH clones.



The FM Deep Turbo C head seems sensitive to specific P60 drop-in. Apparently, it works with the P90 and P91, based on the above (I don't have any P90s or P91s to verify). nailbender reports good success with some of his drop-ins (MC-E and SST-50 for example). I had poor results with a P60 and P61 (had to file the P60 and P61 to fit, and the beam wasn't very good). I had moderately positive results with an old DX11836 (better hot spot, but more ringy beam pattern).


----------



## Justin Case (Feb 9, 2010)

Swagg said:


> As far as the "true SRTH clones" part goes, is that including style and performance or just performance? We can give it a slightly different look like adding an SS or Ti bezel, or finning or grooves...or it could be an exact copy.



Performance, for me. I would prefer a reduced size/weight vs the current KT1/2 THs for the SF C series. I'd like a reflector that throws at least as well as the SRTH (which in all of my measurements out-throws the KT1/2 and the KT4).

With finning, it sounds like you would add a little bit of weight. With grooves, it sounds like you'd remove more metal from the head. At some point, there is a tradeoff of mass vs carryability. You need some mass for thermal management, but not too much extra bulk/size (which is my complaint with the KT1/2). I would go with whichever works better -- finning vs grooving -- for the intended purpose.

I conducted some ad hoc tests and found to my surprise that the SRTH was basically equal to a KT1/2 in terms of keep a Seoul P4-based turbo tower cool. So, it seems that excess mass at some point is not needed.

I don't care about a Ti bezel, especially if it adds cost. It could be an option choice for others who are Ti fans. I might go with blackened SS. I would still like a Pyrex or borofloat window, vs the Lexan in SF's SRTH. Perhaps for those even more weight-conscious than I am, you can offer a separate Lexan window option since I assume the window is going to be removable anyway.


----------



## ampdude (Feb 9, 2010)

Swagg said:


> Yeah my main goal is the 3" TH but the clone will happen just because the machinist wants the challenge. He said lets do both I like the challenge!
> 
> As far as the "true SRTH clones" part goes, is that including style and performance or just performance? We can give it a slightly different look like adding an SS or Ti bezel, or finning or grooves...or it could be an exact copy.



Both style and performance. Most people like the SRTH because they tended to throw very well and also are less bulky than the current KT offerings. I'm not really interested in bezel rings myself, or finning/grooves, I don't really find any of it practical, but I'm sure some would like it as an option.


----------



## ampdude (Feb 9, 2010)

Justin Case said:


> I might go with blackened SS. I would still like a Pyrex or borofloat window, vs the Lexan in SF's SRTH. Perhaps for those even more weight-conscious than I am, you can offer a separate Lexan window option since I assume the window is going to be removable anyway.



I'm also for it using a fairly thick piece of pyrex. One machined out of stainless steel would add weight and decrease thermal efficiency vs. one machined out of aluminum, so I would not be interested in that. I'm not really that interested in running an LED tower in one anyways, but I do want the TH to be light and compact like the SRTH.


----------



## Justin Case (Feb 9, 2010)

For the blackened SS, I was referring only to the window retaining ring. The rest of the TH ought to be aluminum, as you suggest.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Feb 9, 2010)

ampdude said:


> I'm also for it using a fairly thick piece of pyrex. One machined out of stainless steel would add weight and decrease thermal efficiency vs. one machined out of aluminum, so I would not be interested in that. I'm not really that interested in running an LED tower in one anyways, but I do want the TH to be light and compact like the SRTH.


I'm not interested in LEDs either. And I don't mind the SureFire current TH's weight or size, because they can take a nuke and keep on going. So if the OP can built a Turbohead as tough as the Millenium Turboheads I'll be all over it. Old SRTHs were great throwers but they don't have that nuclear toughness found on the current SF THs.


----------



## ampdude (Feb 9, 2010)

Are you saying that you're looking for a KT style turbohead, but in 3" diameter? I personally don't require a turbohead that tough. But I don't see how it would be a whole lot tougher than a traditional style. I try to be careful with my lights, but I expect them to take some reasonable abuse in harsh situations.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Feb 9, 2010)

ampdude said:


> Are you saying that you're looking for a KT style turbohead, but in 3" diameter? I personally don't require a turbohead that tough. But I don't see how it would be a whole lot tougher than a traditional style. I try to be careful with my lights, but I expect them to take some reasonable abuse in harsh situations.


Not necessarily exactly like a KT Turbohead. Although I woudn't mind having a 3'' KT4 or even bigger...


----------



## Swagg (Feb 9, 2010)

Justin Case said:


> I would still like a Pyrex or borofloat window, vs the Lexan in SF's SRTH. Perhaps for those even more weight-conscious than I am, you can offer a separate Lexan window option since I assume the window is going to be removable anyway.



Right now I have a good lead on Borofloat lens so that's the current plan. I'm pretty sure I'll be making this with a retainer ring with a bezel option(not set in stone though).


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Feb 10, 2010)

Swagg said:


> Right now I have a good lead on Borofloat lens so that's the current plan. I'm pretty sure I'll be making this with a retainer ring with a bezel option(not set in stone though).


Borofloat would be great!


----------



## Swagg (Feb 22, 2010)

DM Sent.



kakster said:


> Interested too.
> 
> Where are you based?
> 
> I have one of the 3" T heads i can loan you to make the required measurements.


----------



## azzkikr (Feb 22, 2010)

Justin Case said:


> I would be more interested in a $100 SRTH clone, except with a borofloat window instead of the Lexan (and a removable retaining ring to hold the window in place). A 3" diameter TH is 1.44X larger in circular area than a 2.5" TH. The 3" size most likely will be very inconvenient for any sort of carry, while the 2.5" SRTH is carryable in an outer garment pocket.



+2 on this one too. I'll take one of each. 

Fred
azzkikr


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Feb 22, 2010)

Any update??


----------



## Swagg (Feb 22, 2010)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> Any update??



Right now I'm waiting on the 3 inch TH to arrive for research purposes. My machinist wants to study it so we can hopefully make an advanced version. I'll post back when it arrives.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Feb 22, 2010)

Swagg said:


> Right now I'm waiting on the 3 inch TH to arrive for research purposes. My machinist wants to study it so we can hopefully make an advanced version. I'll post back when it arrives.


While you are at it, increase that sweet Turbohead by 0.5 inch...


----------



## jaundice (Feb 22, 2010)

Whatever you guys end up doing, I'm in for at least one. My preference would be for an SRTH clone, but a mongo TH of 3 inches or greater would be awesome, too. If you do both, I'll probably grab one of each.

I wouldn't worry too much about which thread size to go with, either C or M, because I think that most CPFers have one or both size bodies. Further, that just complicates your manufacturing. It's probably cheaper for the buyer to pick up a 9P body or some Solarforce extensions for a 6P than for you to tool up for two different thread types.

-John


----------



## Swagg (Feb 26, 2010)

Hey guys, I just received the 3" SRTH in the mail for study/research purposes, I'll post some photos in a few.


----------



## Swagg (Feb 26, 2010)

Okey, I'm gonna post some shots of the SRTH on a SF C2 and a Leef 2x18500 body just for kicks. Lets hope I do this right(post the pics that it)


----------



## Justin Case (Feb 26, 2010)

In the course of discussion re: bigChelis's integrated sphere measurements, it seems apparent that shock-resistant heads can cut OTF lumens by 10%-20%, which I would imagine is undesirable. So a custom TH design ought to try to optimize the shape to eliminate as much as possible any body masking/blocking of the beam. Thus, do not use excessively protruding bezel rims -- scalloped, strike, or otherwise.


----------



## Swagg (Feb 26, 2010)

Initial thoughts are I really like this size. I'll carry everywhere this weekend to test carry-ability, performance and throw. I'm meeting with the machinist this weekend so he can research the build. Honestly, I really like this size, and for a thrower this isn't inconvenient to me at all. We'll see how the weekend goes.


----------



## Swagg (Feb 26, 2010)

Justin Case said:


> In the course of discussion re: bigChelis's integrated sphere measurements, it seems apparent that shock-resistant heads can cut OTF lumens by 10%-20%, which I would imagine is undesirable. So a custom TH design ought to try to optimize the shape to eliminate as much as possible any body masking/blocking of the beam. Thus, do not use excessively protruding bezel rims -- scalloped, strike, or otherwise.



Yeah I've noticed this as well. I think I will make a retaining ring only so that I will have the ability to easily change the reflector/lens if necessary. But I could easily make a flat SS and crenellated SS as extra options.

This SRTH has a light stipple, I wonder if there would be a purpose in making maybe 2 or 3 types of reflectors ranging from SMO to Heavy Stipple?


----------



## azzkikr (Feb 26, 2010)

Looking good. Can't wait to see how this turns out. I vote for C type threads. 

Azzkikr
Fred


----------



## Swagg (Feb 26, 2010)

azzkikr said:


> Looking good. Can't wait to see how this turns out. I vote for C type threads.



Ya know what, I do too. I don't even own an M light right now.


----------



## Kestrel (Feb 26, 2010)

Swagg said:


> This SRTH has a light stipple, I wonder if there would be a purpose in making maybe 2 or 3 types of reflectors ranging from SMO to Heavy Stipple?


I admit I'm a relative lightweight on this topic, but it seems to me that anything more textured than a light stipple might defeat the process - we're going for throw here, not trying to get a clean hotspot & beam from an incan filament. I have the standard SF texture on my KT2, but as I'm running an LED tower (a pretty uniform light source to start with) in my KT2, I'd rather not have any of that texturing and would prefer a smooth reflector for max throw. My two lumens,

Edit: and another +1 for C-threads. FWIW I have six bodies with C-threads, but none with M-threads. The amusement I got from trying out my KT2 TH on my 3P-length body was another plus by itself. ~240 lumens of decent LED throw for ~30 minutes on 1x IMR123, in a package with an L-to-D ratio approaching 1.


----------



## tx101 (Feb 26, 2010)

At a very rough guess, what kind of time frame are we looking at ?

Not that I am in any rush :thumbsup:


----------



## Swagg (Feb 26, 2010)

tx101 said:


> At a very rough guess, what kind of time frame are we looking at ?
> 
> Not that I am in any rush :thumbsup:



I won't know anything until my machinist looks at it but I'll keep this thread updated for sure. I'm hoping for a rather quick turnaround though.


----------



## Swagg (Feb 26, 2010)

Kestrel said:


> I admit I'm a relative lightweight on this topic, but it seems to me that anything more textured than a light stipple might defeat the process - we're going for throw here, not trying to get a clean hotspot & beam from an incan filament.



Yeah I'm just making sure we cover all the bases.


----------



## merrimac (Feb 26, 2010)

I VOTE FOR 3'' HEAD WITH M THREADS W/ BUSHING DOWN FOR C IF SOMEONE WANTS C = 1 HEAD FOR 2 SIZES, i'M IN FOR 2 HEADS:twothumbs


----------



## jaundice (Feb 26, 2010)

Swagg said:


> This SRTH has a light stipple, I wonder if there would be a purpose in making maybe 2 or 3 types of reflectors ranging from SMO to Heavy Stipple?


 
From looking at a lot of reflector sales threads, you'll quickly find that the most popular styles of reflector (SMO and LOP) quickly sell out, leaving the other types to languish. To avoid having a bunch of reflectors in your garage that you can't sell, I think you should just follow the KISS principle and pick one type to go with initially. If, after the first run of SMO or LOP people want more, maybe make them on a custom basis. 

I really think your best bet is to pick one known winner of a product and make it. An SRTH clone with one type of reflector will sell. Then, after you see how well you do, branch our VERY carefully into other profitable niches.

Either way, I'm buying one, or more, of them. The SRTH is the gold standard of SF turboheads.

-John


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Feb 27, 2010)

SMO is the only way to go. Let the thrower throw! Don't ruin it with textures...


----------



## merrimac (Feb 27, 2010)

THROW IS WHAT TURBOHEAD IS ALL ABOUT...........AMEN


----------



## azzkikr (Feb 27, 2010)

While a smooth reflector would likely be the ideal choice for LEDs, we should not forget that there still Incan lights and users out there so the LOP should still be at least an option. Not to forget that the LOP reflector would work with both Incan and led alike. Just my .02. 

Azzkikr
Fred


----------



## flashfiend (Feb 28, 2010)

I know the final details are still up in the air and this is in the incan forum but I think it would be more interesting to design this for LEDs. There are already quite a few heads it seems that work with incans (i.e. SF KT-series, SRTH, FM Deep Turbo Head, I'm probably missing a few). Additionally there is the 2.5" TLS turbohead that will accept a P60 pill and mount onto an 'M' body. I'm thinking an interesting turbohead would be one designed for LEDs using a P60 pill that threads onto a 'C' body. Similar to FMs design (which sounds like it is great for incans when paired with his D26 reflectors but less effective for LEDs in my experience) but more of a one piece type like the DBS head. I guess I'm suggesting a larger 3" version of the DBS head that screws onto a 'C' compatible host. If you've seen any of bigChelis' recent IS data on LEDs in a DBS setup, you'll notice this design provides good heatsinking which increases output. I know some of you are looking for this on an 'M' body but it sounds like you already have several options unless I'm missing something. Btw, please let me know if I am. I'm still relatively new to all of this.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Feb 28, 2010)

No LEDs, please. Make this head for real flashlights.


----------



## bigchelis (Feb 28, 2010)

I say go with a flat bezel and smooth reflector with OP as an option.

No tactical teeth or shock resistance please.

If you can find a way to remove the lens it would be awesome. I like UCL AR coated lens, but others may want a more robust one and being able to change the lens is a big plus.

When do we pay:twothumbs:twothumbs


----------



## flashfiend (Feb 28, 2010)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> No LEDs, please. Make this head for real flashlights.



Hey I'm not knocking incans, why the bash on LEDs? Both have their advantages and disadvantages. I just think there are already options for incans although more never hurts. However, there seems to be a dearth of non-proprietary turboheads for LEDs.


----------



## jaundice (Feb 28, 2010)

Flashfiend;

The technical reason there aren't and can't be generic turbohead options for LEDs is the inherent lack of heatsinking in generic designs. Incans produce a lot of heat, but that heat doesn't affect the bulb. LEDs, on the other hand, are extremely susceptible to heat above 80 degrees centigrade. This means that they must have excellent heatsinking in order to put out a lot of light, since the heat will build up and cause the LED to burn itself up. Justin Case has done a lot of expirimentation on the relative heatsinking ability of Surefire Turboheads. You're really limited to ~1.2 amps in the KT1 or KT2 designs.

Therefore, for the purposes of this turbohead, throw and high output, you're pretty much limited to incans.

That's not to say that you won't be able to easily use LEDs in this design for long runtimes. Do a search on LED turbotowers, and you'll find a number of threads detailing various builds, some of which you could buy on the forums. 

-John


----------



## flashfiend (Feb 28, 2010)

Hi John,

Thanks for the reply. I understand that is an inherent drawback to LEDs but from bigchelis' data and my own observations, a design such as the DBS actually provides really good heatsinking. That's why my suggestion is for something similar but bigger and compatible with SF 'C' body and clones. I really like incans as well but to me it seems like there are already good turbohead options for them. LED so far seem very limited. The Solarforce Masterpiece seemed like a good alternative for LEDs but that uses a proprietary LED mount. As far as I know the pill is not accessible or P60 compatible.

Again, I'm sorry I am pushing this in the incan forum. Not my wish to hijack the intention of this turbohead.


----------



## jaundice (Feb 28, 2010)

Flashfiend;

I think the solution to your problem is the TLS turbohead and body. It's turbohead that takes P60 pills. They screw right in. Plus, the body, which is M head and proprietary tail, has two segments, so you can make it 1x18650 or 2x18650, and perhaps more. This pretty much covers all of your bases. 

-John


----------



## Justin Case (Feb 28, 2010)

I don't think I would characterize my thermal explorations as doing a lot of experimentation in the area. But I do think it provides some interesting observations.

Also, the data is probably better analyzed in terms of LED power draw, not drive current. The highest power draw was for a tower using a 2S2P MC-E driven by an SOB1227. I'd estimate about 7.5W to 8W power draw. In a KT1 TH, the tower heated up to 162F (72C). That is getting close to the 80C limit that the LED manufacturers use for their 50,000 hr/70% lumen maintenance lifetime spec (and they are also using the junction temp, not some heat sink temp). Note that the max MC-E junction temp is 150C, so long-term function (other than some degree of permanent dimming) is probably not an issue.

To estimate LED junction temp, the junction to solder point thermal resistance for the MC-E is given as 3 C/W. If we assume that the thermocouple temperature of the AW tower for the 2S2P MC-E/SOB1227/KT1 configuration is equivalent to the max solder point temperature (not strictly correct since the thermocouple temp is actually Ths, not Tsp, and thus there is the thermal resistance at the slug-tower interface), then the steady state junction temperature is approx 72C + 3C/W * 8.3W = 97C. Based on the relative flux vs junction temperature graph in the MC-E datasheet, output could go down to about 80% compared to the initial output when the LED starts at room temp (25C).

These figures might be considered conservative since the measurements were conducted using just the THs. If you add the thermal masses of the flashlight body, tailcap, batteries, and your hand, that should help to lower the overall temps.

I don't have any data from Cree on LED life at an estimated junction temp of 97C, but it's still probably in the thousands of hours. Hence, my statement above that long term function is probably not an issue. The main thing is you will probably get some degree of permanent lumens loss based on lumens maintenance considerations.

1.2A is close enough to the 1.4A max drive current for a 2S2P MC-E that I'd probably consider a KT1 suitable to drive an MC-E at the max. Not ideal. But probably good enough.


----------



## flashfiend (Feb 28, 2010)

John, I'm aware of the TLS and I'm not really looking for an M compatible head. Besides I thought I read in a prior post that it wasn't as efficient at thermal managment as the DBS, which I actually already have. I guess I'm looking for something more of a cross between FM's head and the DBS but 3" in diameter.


----------



## Steve in SoCal (Mar 1, 2010)

Lets keep on topic people.


----------



## kakster (Mar 1, 2010)

Guys, to get the best out of a LED, your best bet is to go with a head custom designed for one. Lumens factory has the P7 head, plus Surefire's own LED turbohead with a big fat 2.5" TIR optic will be very hard to beat.

Seeing as Surefire have stopped developin incans, this is a rare opportunity to develope and acquire a high performance incan thrower compatible with Surefire flashlights, something which does not exist (apart from rare out-of-production-cost-an-arm-and-a-leg old style T heads).

In short, LED heads will continue to develop apace, while incans will be left for the custom builders like swagg.

Regarding the C threads vs M thread argument, it occurs to me that existing SF designs utilize a mating collar that goes between the flashlight and the actual turbohead. Might it be possible to make collars for both sizes and keep everyone happy?


----------



## Justin Case (Mar 1, 2010)

It's my understanding that this proposed custom head is just the head -- no pill or tower included. Thus, a complete product like a Seraph P7 is a totally different item. I have no interest in a complete head like a Seraph P7, when I already have a large suite of incan and LED turbo towers.

I am looking for a thrower that can accept the towers I already have, and this is my understanding as to what this proposed custom head is supposed to be.

The proposed custom head presumably will be optimized for either an incandescent lamp tower, such as the stock SF MN TH towers or the FM MN bi-pin socket, or one of the LED turbo towers, such as from AW, ArcMania, or Netkidz.

Complete LED head development by outfits like Lumens Factory, SureFire, and others may continue, but they aren't going to address LED turbo tower retrofit. Heads already exist for incandescents -- including the KT1/2 and KT4, which are still readily available, and the old 3" T, SRTH, and TRTH, which are discontinued. FiveMega has a line of THs for incans, including a 3" TH for the Megalennium (sold out -- only 37 made).

In contrast, name one TH that is optimized for LED towers. I don't think there are any. Now, the market for that may be smaller than the incan market since there are no large volume, commercial sources for LED turbo towers. You can't go to DX or KD or Shiningbeam or Lighthound and order an XP-G, much less a Seoul P4, turbo tower. To my knowledge, all LED turbo towers are hand built from scratch or kits. How many is that? 100 tops? But an LED tower-optimized TH would be a completely new product. Since LED turbo tower owners currently have no other choice but to get THs for incandescents, it is quite possible that an LED TH could be a big seller for that group of people.

A downside is that an LED-optimized TH may not work well with an incandescent tower, while an incandescent-optimized TH most likely will work decently with an LED tower (this certainly is the case now with the KT1/2, KT4, SRTH, and TRTH).

An existing TH like the TLS TX3 or Dereelight DBS is of moderate interest since they use a standard P60-style pill. Thus, emitter swaps are very easy (just swap pills), just as they are for a KT1 or KT4 (just swap LED towers). If an adapter could be made so that LED towers could be used, then I think you'd have a big winner. You would have an LED TH that is easily upgradable using a standard P60 pill or an LED tower. How cool is that?

I think we all recognize that M head to C host and C head to M host adapters can be made. The question is which TH threading would address the most buyers so that they don't have to spend extra money on an adapter.


----------



## flashfiend (Mar 1, 2010)

Extremely good points Justin Case although I'm failing to understand the insistence on LED tower compatible heads. Other than a few custom builds, I don't see very many LED towers and I didn't think the heatsinking for the towers were very effective (a must for LED applications). I'm only pointing this out because I thought a tower based setup and a non-tower setup would require different focal length reflectors. As far as the most users, I'm still thinking P60 'C' host users would be the most numerous. I'm kind of basing this on the fact that between nailbender's D36 and D26 threads, the D26 has the most interest. I know this is a very segmented part of the market but even outside of that I don't see very many D36 applications.

Good thoughts so far and again I'm sorry for more discussion on LEDs as the OP seemed to be interested on building a incan turbo head.


----------



## Justin Case (Mar 1, 2010)

Yes, I stated that LED towers are more rare than SF MN incan towers. However, you can get a count of some of them -- Netkidz sold a bunch of built towers in an B/S/T sales thread last year. He also sold some tower kits. He currently has a new sales thread for additional kits. AW has a long-standing sales thread for his kits in the Marketplace. This is in addition to the harder to count numbers of Arcmania towers and other towers. But I think it is safe to say total numbers range from 50-100.

As I estimated above, a KT1 can effectively heat sink an MC-E driven at full power. It handled my 2S2P MC-E tower driven by an SOB1227. So I think it is incorrect to say that heat sinking of LED towers isn't effective. It clearly is. It probably could be even better if specifically designed for LED thermal management. It already is certainly more than sufficient for SSC P4s and Cree XP-Gs. I'm running an XP-G R4 tower driven at 1450mA with no heat issues.

The interest, not insistence, on an LED tower-optimized TH is because LEDs are efficient with long run times, and no such tower currently exists. LED turbo tower owners have to settle for a compromise. An LED tower-optimized TH that delivers max throw and max lumens would be a big advancement vs the current approach of using THs that are designed for incan towers. My sense is that you lose more lumens than you should when using an LED tower in a KT1 or KT4. A TH that can also take a P60 pill would be a tremendous product in terms of LED flexibility and upgrade path.

Why would a LED tower vs non-tower LED setup require a different focal length? If the tower uses an XP-G and the pill uses an XP-G, what's the difference optically? Yes, there will be a difference in terms of how much the "carrier" (tower vs pill) protrudes out the back of the TH, but that is the job of the adapter to accommodate that difference.

If you mean that a TH optimized for LEDs vs an TH optimized for incan will probably be different, I mentioned that issue.


----------



## kakster (Mar 1, 2010)

The problem with the LED tower/incan head is in the tower module itself; that skinny metal post can only conduct so much heat regardless of how you design the turbohead its connected to.

Unless you're happy sticking to single die cree/seoul p4, even if the turbohead was actively cooled with liquid nitrogen, the LED would still fry because of the thermal bottleneck between the die slug and where the tower post makes contact with the turbohead.

And as for the C/M thread debate, it's a relatively easy exercise to make an M head fit on a C tube; there are already plenty of afermarket options.

Making a C head fit on an M tube is inherently more complicated as you're trying to screw a larger diameter body in to a smaller diameter hole. It would be a lot less hassle the other way round.

I did suggest you pursue purpose built LED heads because at the end of the day, a LED tower module is a compromise. You would get far better performance with a solution designed for an LED rather than shoehorning a LED into a reflector designed for the 360 degree radiation pattern of an incan.


----------



## carrot (Mar 1, 2010)

Swagg said:


>



Swagg, this last pic here has me drooling... Looks amazing.

I am curious what you are running in there, perhaps you posted about it earlier but I missed it?


----------



## Justin Case (Mar 1, 2010)

kakster said:


> Unless you're happy sticking to single die cree/seoul p4, even if the turbohead was actively cooled with liquid nitrogen, the LED would still fry because of the thermal bottleneck between the die slug and where the tower post makes contact with the turbohead.


 
Personal experience says this is not correct.

I've driven a 2S2P MC-E/SOB1227 tower for over an hour continuous in a KT1 with no problem.


----------



## Swagg (Mar 1, 2010)

carrot said:


> Swagg, this last pic here has me drooling... Looks amazing.
> 
> I am curious what you are running in there, perhaps you posted about it earlier but I missed it?



I know I love the TH on this body, it surprisingly handles really well. The CPFer that sent it to me sent an LED tower with it so I'm not sure what LED it is I noticed it is a 4dye emitter though. It's nice and bright with a very tight spot.


----------



## kakster (Mar 1, 2010)

Swagg said:


> I know I love the TH on this body, it surprisingly handles really well. The CPFer that sent it to me sent an LED tower with it so I'm not sure what LED it is I noticed it is a 4dye emitter though. It's nice and bright with a very tight spot.



It's an X bin Lux V running at 833ma from about 6 years ago.

Looks impressive enough, but the Surefire N62 bulb on fresh batteries absolutely smokes it.

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/48261

Looks like the pictures have been lost somewhere.


----------



## Swagg (Mar 1, 2010)

kakster said:


> It's an X bin Lux V running at 833ma from about 6 years ago.
> 
> Looks impressive enough, but the Surefire N62 bulb on fresh batteries absolutely smokes it.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the info, yeah my incans currently are much brighter, but this with a WA1185 would be amazing. My BigLeef C body is at the machinist right now getting some custom work done to it so I can't test the 1185 right now but soon.


----------



## Justin Case (Mar 1, 2010)

Sure, my N62 lamp in a 12ZM with SRTH also delivers more lumens and has a brighter hot spot than I'd get with an old Lux V emitter. That's like comparing an M6 to a 6P. Apples and oranges.

Now, consider an optimized LED TH with a current-gen emitter. For example, see bigChelis's data here. An XP-G R4 delivered 300 OTF lumens and 27,400 lux at 1 meter in a TLS TX3 TH. Yeah, the N62 is rated at 500 lumens (although I've never seen anything close to 27,400 lux in my 12ZM using an N62). Initially. With 12 min total run time and drastically decreasing output during that time.

I have an FM MN bi pin socket and have run super bulbs like the 1111, 1331, and 1185 in an M6. These bulbs are great, with the excellent CRI you'd expect from an incan. They just blast my lux meter. But current draw is high, run time is short, and bulb life is estimated in the single digit hours.


----------



## kakster (Mar 1, 2010)

But the whole point is, this is the INCAN forum.

I'm looking for a big *** turbohead to run *incandescent* bulbs in.

Perhaps you should try starting an LED turbohead thread in the appropiate forum?

Like i keep saying, the LED towers are fine for what they are, but a lot of reflector is wasted when using them in a head designed for a hotwire.


----------



## Justin Case (Mar 1, 2010)

Yes, I realize that this is the Incandescent Flashlights forum. However, that doesn't mean that one has free license to make invalid comparisons and not be called on it.

FM's Deep Turbo C Head appears to be an example of optimizing for incan throw. It produces a higher lux reading for the hot spot than for the same bulbs in my KT4.

If Swagg goes the incan optimized route, I'd favor a TH that uses towers, not P60s. Or ideally, both, using some sort of wild adapter.

If the head is 3", I'd like it to be as slim as possible.


----------



## Swagg (Mar 1, 2010)

Justin Case said:


> Yes, I realize that this is the Incandescent Flashlights forum. However, that doesn't mean that one has free license to make invalid comparisons and not be called on it.
> 
> FM's Deep Turbo C Head appears to be an example of optimizing for incan throw. It produces a higher lux reading for the hot spot than for the same bulbs in my KT4.
> 
> ...



I wasn't making an invalid comparison, I was just stating that the incans I have are brighter NOT that all incans are brighter and making the point that I don't have many LED lights and THIS is the ONLY LED tower that I have.


----------



## Justin Case (Mar 1, 2010)

I was referring to Post #93, not your post. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Swagg (Mar 1, 2010)

Ah that makes sense...


----------



## Swagg (Mar 1, 2010)

Well I originally started this thread because I needed/wanted a large head for throwing purposes and I prefer color rendition and power of incans and use LEDs for my EDCs for durability. I know that brightness for LEDs have made some huge jumps I just don't own any of the newer LEDs. At best we could maybe make a hybrid but right now I'm not interested in a completely dedicated LED head. From what I've gathered here, the biggest problem with LEDs and a TH is heat, maybe we can build the TH with that in mind and figure out a great way to get heat to the body of the light so it can dissipate...thoughts?


----------



## Justin Case (Mar 1, 2010)

The challenge with LED towers is the thermal interface between the tower "stem" and the reflector opening walls. If the fit is too tight, then it is a hassle to slide the tower in and out. If the fit is too loose, then heat transfer is compromised. I've noticed that apparent machining tolerance variations in SF THs already result in tighter or looser fit between the reflector opening and a tower stem.

The pill approach, such as seen in the TLS TX3, can work very well because you can put a light coat of thermal compound in the pill threads to improve heat transfer to the TH.

So perhaps you can design a "pseudo-pill" or collar that surrounds the tower stem, and which can clamp tightly around the stem. You could even coat the stem with some thermal compound. Then this collar screws into the TH, with the collar's threads also coated with thermal compound.

Edit: Actually, the thermal interface between the stem and reflector opening walls may not be that critical. The tower's flange bears directly on the under surface of the TH reflector. It's a flat-on-flat contact. Add a little thermal compound there, and you're probably all set. The reflector flat is a ring with ~0.8" OD and ~0.6" ID. Thus, the surface area is pi*(0.8^2 - 0.6^2) = 0.88 sq in = 0.00057m^2. If we use Arctic Silver 5 compound, we have a thermal conductivity of 8.89 W/m-K. If we assume a bond line of 1 mil (2.54 x 10^-5 m), we get a thermal resistance of 0.005 C/W. So it looks like the thermal resistance is essentially nil.


----------



## flashfiend (Mar 2, 2010)

Swagg said:


> Well I originally started this thread because I needed/wanted a large head for throwing purposes and I prefer color rendition and power of incans and use LEDs for my EDCs for durability. I know that brightness for LEDs have made some huge jumps I just don't own any of the newer LEDs. At best we could maybe make a hybrid but right now I'm not interested in a completely dedicated LED head. From what I've gathered here, the biggest problem with LEDs and a TH is heat, maybe we can build the TH with that in mind and figure out a great way to get heat to the body of the light so it can dissipate...thoughts?



Please don't make a mutt out of your turbohead. Either go incan or go LED, I don't think a hybrid will be optimum for either and it will reduce the appeal of the turbohead. If you do go the LED route, I'd like to probably see some type of heatpipe setup similar to CPU heatsinks that take heat as directly away from the LED-pill as possible.


----------



## Swagg (Mar 2, 2010)

flashfiend said:


> Please don't make a mutt out of your turbohead. Either go incan or go LED, I don't think a hybrid will be optimum for either and it will reduce the appeal of the turbohead. If you do go the LED route, I'd like to probably see some type of heatpipe setup similar to CPU heatsinks that take heat as directly away from the LED-pill as possible.



I guess what I was suggesting was making the TH with great heat syncing abilities, I don't think that would make it a mutt would it? It would still throw just the same, I would just design it to make great contact with the flat surface of the tower and the body.


----------



## Swagg (Mar 2, 2010)

Justin Case said:


> Edit: Actually, the thermal interface between the stem and reflector opening walls may not be that critical. The tower's flange bears directly on the under surface of the TH reflector. It's a flat-on-flat contact.



That's what I was noticing last night...this part may not be that big of a challange. I'll post a pic soon on what you mentioned...


----------



## Swagg (Mar 2, 2010)

Photos of the neck and collar, notice how the tower makes good contact with the threads to collar.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swaggart/4400903275/in/set-72157623540861256/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swaggart/4400902725/in/set-72157623540861256/


----------



## azzkikr (Mar 21, 2010)

any news on this???


----------



## Swagg (Mar 25, 2010)

azzkikr said:


> any news on this???



The machinist has it, he's been taking measurements and waiting for one of his machines to open up so he can start playing around with the build. He seems pretty positive about the possibility though. Right now the major concern is building this in the right price range.


----------



## donn_ (Mar 27, 2010)

Fascinating thread!

I'm a great turbohead fan, as well as both an LED and incan hotwire fan.

I have setups with almost all the existing SF and FM turboheads, and they use LED towers, in-the-tube LED drop-ins, permanent single LED builds, and incans in KIU sockets. Once I get my 4" Modamag head, my collection will be close to complete.

While the SF heads, both old and new, are awesome heads, in my opinion, they can't compete with Mag-compatible heads with the appropriate reflectors. Put the same exact LED tower or incal lamp into one of FM's custom reflectors in a stock MagLite head, and in an SRTH, and the MagLite will beat it for throw.

Add to that the HUGE advantage of being able to use larger light-source apertures in Mag reflectors, enabling the use of bigger lamps or emitters, and they continue to dominate.

FM's accessories for Maglite heads are phenomenal. The short-lived bi-focal reflector for stock Mag heads can't be beaten for lamps in the 1111 size range. His deep reflector mods are equally impressive, like the 2.5" deep reflector with it's multi-textured finish.

FM has recently struck again with the MagFire bodies. With his M-series to Mag adapter package, you can run either Maglite or SF-M series heads on a smaller format tube.

All in all, I think it's going to be really difficult to compete with the Maglite head option, for either incan or LED builds. It's got a far bigger market than any other large head, and things like reflectors and lenses are far more available.

What I'd like to see is a series of adapters which would allow the use of a C-Mag or C-series SF tube on a D-Mag head, with the option to run either turbo towers, PR lamps or bi-pin lamps.


----------



## merrimac (Mar 27, 2010)

if i understand Donn, have a adapter to use a Mag C body on the 3" turbohead......that is what i would buy a couple of.........I have a 3" SRTH head (thanks to Dafabricata) on a SF C body, but would LUV to put a 3" turbo head on a 2-C mag body make the head "M" size thus making it user friendly to bushing down to many different body host....skys the limit on combo's........


----------



## Justin Case (Mar 27, 2010)

The way I understand it, FM's adapter works only with his various Mag reflectors. The adapter doesn't work with just any Mag head/reflector combo. So, you have to pay extra for the proper reflector, besides getting the adapter.

If you control the production and thus the dimensions of the Mag reflector, as FM does, then making an adapter for it so that you can use SureFire towers makes sense. But if you don't control the production/dimensions of the Mag reflector, then just the slightest change can throw off your adapter completely.

Let's say you want to support some 3rd party generic Mag reflector that is inexpensive and plentiful. You might think that the KD v.3.1 15mm opening OP reflector could be a good choice. It's a nice drop-in Mag OP reflector and relatively cheap at $15. But if the bottom surface profile of the reflector changes, then your adapter may no longer fit. If the reflector wall thickness changes, your SF tower may not be at the right focus height anymore and your beam can suffer. If the reflector shape changes, same potential negative effect on the beam. And we know how KD and DX like to make random changes to their products.

So if Swagg makes a Mag adapter so that folks can use Mag heads, the question is what Mag reflector to support. I would be reluctant to buy a $10 adapter and have to spend $40 for the reflector.


----------



## donn_ (Mar 28, 2010)

Justin Case said:


> The way I understand it, FM's adapter works only with his various Mag reflectors. The adapter doesn't work with just any Mag head/reflector combo. So, you have to pay extra for the proper reflector, besides getting the adapter.



The adapter is two pieces. One mates the M-series tube to the D-Mag head. The other threads onto the back of an FM removable cam reflector, which ranged from $20-$50 in cost. That allows the use of a turbo tower or an FM bi-pin holder.

What I'm proposing is a range of adapters, which will allow the use of smaller tubes with D or C-Mag heads, and will be able to adapt to any reflector, because they will not fasten to the reflector.

My point is the Mag heads are so ubiquitous, and so effective, it makes more sense to spend in the development of adapting to them, than to devise an entirely new head.


----------



## Justin Case (Mar 28, 2010)

I agree that the Mag heads are a great, inexpensive TH. But whether the adapter screws into the bottom of the reflector, press fits into it, or just presses against the outer face/surface, you still have to depend on repeatable interfacing and consistent dimensions to achieve proper tower focus. If anything about the reflector changes, then this interface repeatability and-or dimensional consistency can also change.

So the adapter probably ought to include a focus adjustment and a set screw so that you can tweak the tower for any brand, version, or model of Mag reflector.


----------



## donn_ (Mar 28, 2010)

Tower focus, whether LED or incan is easy to accomplish. The interface needs to be shallower than required, and the tower is then shimmed back with thin washers, as needed.

Other concerns would be interfacing with the stock Mag PR socket, for both PR lamps and in-the-tube LED drop-ins, and with KIU sockets for larger lamps and regulated or soft-start switches. This is why a range of adapters would be needed. It still seems to me it would be more cost effective to invest in the adapters, and utilize common heads and tubes.


----------



## Justin Case (Mar 28, 2010)

I personally dislike the shim approach. Just more loose pieces to lose, more loose pieces to have in inventory to cover the range of potential adjustment heights. I like the continuous adjustment range available from a threaded approach. And if you have a bench supply, you can power the head and tower without needing the battery tube and adjust and set the focus on the fly. Can't do that with shims. Shims also work only if you start too long, rather than too short. Starting too long is not guaranteed. It may be initially with some given reflector, until the manufacturer makes some change to it.


----------



## donn_ (Mar 28, 2010)

I seldom have a bench power supply with me when using a flashlight in the wild.

I have two little baggies of 10mm x 16mm shims. One of 0.5mm thickness and one of 0.2mm. Finer tolerances are never needed.

Once the light is set-up properly, the only time I change anything is to replace the lamp or recharge the cells. I don't run different light sources in the same host.

If you're using Mag heads adapted to smaller tubes, the threaded approach to focus is still available. Take the Magfire, for example. I've got two set up and sitting on my desk. There is no tower, so the only focus adjustment is the threading on the Mag heads. One is an 1111 in a bi-focal reflector, and the other is a 5761 in a medium stipple reflector. Both are infinitely adjustable in focus.

The ability to use a wide variety of after-market reflectors in a ubiquitous head is a huge advantage.


----------



## Justin Case (Mar 28, 2010)

I mentioned the bench supply as an example of how one can accomplish on the fly focus adjustments, which is very convenient. Obviously, one doesn't need the bench supply to make focus adjustments "in the wild". So that argument against a screw thread adjustment approach is basically a canard. In fact, if I am truly "in the wild", I'd probably would not want to deal with carrying (and potentially losing) some glorified little washers.

The argument that finer tolerances than what one can achieve using 0.2mm and 0.7mm shims are unnecessary seems to assume that you are working with known reflectors. Certainly, that can be the case right now when you are dealing with FM's Mag adapter and FM's Mag reflectors. But how much something is out of focus can have infinite variation when you remove the constraint of the specific reflector and its specific dimensions.

That's the whole crux of the matter. If you design the adapter to work with ANY Mag reflector, then ANY and all Mag reflector dimensions come into play -- different reflector curvatures, different reflector wall thicknesses, different reflector bottom profiles, etc etc. And if you start out too short, then shims aren't going to help at all.

If one can make the usual focus adjustments by merely screwing/unscrewing the Mag head, then why even both with either of our proposed approaches (shims or an thread-adjustable adapter)? Just get the dimensions close and leave the fine adjustment to the Mag head, which has lots of travel.


----------



## Swagg (May 23, 2010)

Just keeping y'all updated. The old style 3" TH that I'm borrowing doesn't allow for the reflector to be removed-at least not that I can tell. It's the reflector in the TH that Ive posted in this thread. We were wanting to take it out to get some measurements and tests. If anyone has one that can be removed PM me, I have some questions.


----------



## Raoul_Duke (May 23, 2010)

I'm not 100% sure, but I belive that the head and reflector is all one chunk of Alu.

If you are looking at a two piece head and reflector setup, it would be good to have the reflector threaded ( so you can screw it in) to the head for heat transfer, or a tight fit to help with heatsinking, that should help to keep the temp. down on the reflective coating, that could melt, for want of a better word.


----------



## maxspeeds (Apr 28, 2014)

Haven't read anything in this thread for a while. I'm still interested in a 2.5" or 3" SRTH. 4 year bump to check in on progress.


----------



## cenz (Apr 28, 2014)

LF work hard for TH already, just in final adjustment; I hope this item can replace SF's TH (current/discont) with more throw, price and build quality.


----------

