# Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW ??



## cryhavok (Aug 11, 2010)

Hey All,

Over the years it seems that surefire has changed the reflector coatings on their wonderful Surefire M6 (KT4) heads. They have gone from a light orange peel to a medium/heavy OP or stipple. While this does a good job at smoothing out the beam, it also *kills* the throw. 

I have a M6 head hosting a 1185 and the stippling on the reflector is so strong that it has basically merged the hotspot and corona. The light is bright, but doesn't throw much. I want my M6 to be able to really reach out and touch things :thumbsup:

I want to gauge how much interest there is in a replacement aluminum reflector finished in SMO or LOP. I don't have any capabilities/experience with this, but maybe someone on the forum will be persuaded with a strong interest to produce a new reflector (*cough* fivemega *cough) 

See this post from forum member: ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond


> It's pretty hard to get a really good shot of the reflector, this is about the best I can do. The first one is a pretty heavy OP (maybe even more so that most of the KT4s I've owned. The second one appears to be a VLOP reflector and came from a slightly older M6 purchased. Most of the 5-6 other KT4 have been just a little less OP than the first on, but it is significant when it comes to a distance based showdown between lights.
> 
> If I put a WA1185 in the MOP reflector and a WA1111 in the VLOP (both focused perfectly), I can throw further with the dimmer light.


Here is a post by wquiles showing head disassembly and what the reflector looks like:


>


So please post if you are interested and maybe we can get this project off the ground :twothumbs


----------



## Bullet Bob (Aug 11, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*

I'm in for one.


----------



## bigchelis (Aug 11, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*

Whatever gets designed needs to get rid of that shock isolation. They rob as much as 20% of the OTF lumens (in the spill of course).

bigC


----------



## Kestrel (Aug 11, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*

Dumb question warning, sorry 

There's no way that this reflector being discussed could be compatible with the *KT1&2* TH as well as the shock-isolated M6 head right?


----------



## cryhavok (Aug 11, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*

Very interesting point bigchelis...I would be willing to sacrifice the "shock isolated bezel" to gain back some of those lumens (and possibly get even more throw with a new reflector to utilize the added space). I know I treat my M6 like a baby (and I have a suspicion that a lot of members do too)...Unless the head is going on a rifle I don't think it is really needed or will ever be utilized. Every mag hotwire and a ton of other surefire incandescents do just fine without the shock isolation at the bezel. 

Just got word from Fivemega that he is on board as long as there is enough interest


----------



## cryhavok (Aug 11, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*



Kestrel said:


> Dumb question warning, sorry
> 
> There's no way that this reflector being discussed could be compatible with the *KT1&2* TH as well as the shock-isolated M6 head right?



The KT1/2/3/4/5/ M3T/4/6 all use the same reflector so yes, it would be compatible. 

So...who want's to increase the throw of their surefire turbohead and* really *make it a "turbo" head 

Post up your interest :thumbsup:


----------



## djans1397 (Aug 11, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*

I'd be down for one!

Dan


----------



## Justin Case (Aug 11, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*

Interested. Also interested in a bezel ring removal tool for the KT1/2 and KT4 tool to swap out the reflector.


----------



## BigMHoff (Aug 11, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*

In for one for my Megallanium 1909 Searchlight.


----------



## pwatcher (Aug 11, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*

I'd be in for one, depending on cost..


----------



## Kestrel (Aug 11, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*

Also interested, depending on cost. SMO only, not LOP.

Edit: Any guesses as to a potential lux increase for SMO over the SF OP like in the second pic in post #1?
I know that the possible variation would be wide, but could an increase be ~25%, or perhaps greater? 

2nd Edit: If I was to be interested, this reflector would need to be compatible with the non-shock-isolated KT1/2 TH's as well as the shock-isolated M6 TH.


----------



## alantch (Aug 11, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*

I'm in for 1 or even 2, depending on price. Would prefer VLOP to LOP. And the ring removal tool too.


----------



## jdriller (Aug 11, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*

I'm in and for tool also.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Aug 11, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*

I would be in for one of these. As the above pictures show of the KT4 heads I have - you can be sure I am running my 1185 with the lesser OP of the two. To be honest I have never seen another head with as low a VLOP as that head. Most of the other newer ones are MOP like the other head.

I'm not sure if SMO or VLOP would be the best - but for some real throw we know SMO is the best.

A couple of things which would be important for me:


Get rid of the shock isolation.
A tool included to help open the bezel
Increased contact between the reflector and bezel to help with heat transfer. The new Mega-B provides for much better heat dispersion because of the increased contact between reflector and body.
Possible Ultraclear lens with better transmitance.
FM - Are you listening?


----------



## JetskiMark (Aug 11, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*

This sounds interesting.

I know I would have to buy one if the throw was noticeably increased without producing too many artifacts.


----------



## cryhavok (Aug 12, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*

Regarding the difference reflectors can make, check out LuxLuthor's thread comparing different reflector finishes and their effect on beam distribution.

I know there are more SF turbohead fans out there...keep posting :nana:


----------



## fivemega (Aug 12, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*



ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> This:
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/287197





fivemega said:


> *This would be interesting project for a kit of containing a bezel removal tool, bi-focal SMO reflector with possibility of using 5761 and UCL lens in** a KT-4 head.
> How many people interested?*


----------



## It01Firefox (Aug 12, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*

Hi,

I'd also be interested in one or two, plus a bezel ring removal tool.

Markus


----------



## Justin Case (Aug 12, 2010)

I would prefer a Borofloat option. I'm willing to give up a few percent transmission for the greater durability of Boro vs UCL.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Aug 12, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*

Glad your keeping your eyes on the thread FM.

I was just about to question if that bi-focal lens would be able to help in this type of product.

I'd totally be in for this. 

Your 3" head is really great but it just makes the KT4 based lights a bit too big to carry around.

Has anyone posted some beamshots of the bi-focal reflector?


----------



## Justin Case (Aug 12, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*



bigchelis said:


> Whatever gets designed needs to get rid of that shock isolation. They rob as much as 20% of the OTF lumens (in the spill of course).
> 
> bigC



What is the actual operational impact of this? For example, if the spill lux decreases from something like 100 lux to 80 lux when measured at the spill midpoint, then is this going to matter? If not, then I'd rather have the shock absorption system. I'm not going to run an incan weaponlight without a shock system.


----------



## Fusion_m8 (Aug 13, 2010)

C'mon guys, shock isolation is a must for M-series lights... remember that flashlights are _not just a hobby_ for some CPFers...


----------



## bigchelis (Aug 13, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*



Justin Case said:


> What is the actual operational impact of this? For example, if the spill lux decreases from something like 100 lux to 80 lux when measured at the spill midpoint, then is this going to matter? If not, then I'd rather have the shock absorption system. I'm not going to run an incan weaponlight without a shock system.


 

From what I could tell the loss in the stock KT-4 bezel was due to 2 things.

The spill lost due to that shock isolation and the lack of UCL AR coated lens. 

For throw purposes the shock isolation makes no difference as the loss in lumens is in the spill and you likely won't notice it anyways. 


bigC


----------



## Justin Case (Aug 13, 2010)

So why suggest removing the shock system, which does provide a major, tangible benefit when using incan lamps?

Also, I would not want to use a coated UCL in a head that can be used with fairly hot running lamps like an 1185, 5761, and the like.


----------



## cryhavok (Aug 13, 2010)

Here is a review with beamshots of the Bi-focal reflector:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/248153

Looks like a good option for really cleaning up the beam without losing too much throw. 



I don't think losing the shock isolation will significantly increase the throw if a new reflector was made...that is the whole purpose of this mod. Also, it may not be feasible to create a new reflector geometry to fit in the confined space.


----------



## Illum (Aug 13, 2010)

*Re: Feeler: Surefire M6 SMO/LOP reflector to increase THROW*



bigchelis said:


> Whatever gets designed needs to get rid of that shock isolation. They rob as much as 20% of the OTF lumens (in the spill of course).
> 
> bigC



Since the shock isolation takes up space in the bezel, removing it could mean the redesign of a longer parabolic reflector to facilitate this increase in throw:nana:


----------



## Kestrel (Aug 13, 2010)

If this was designed in such a manner, it would probably reduce the potential market somewhat - a lot of folks (like me) have the KT1/2 non-shock-isolated TH's, and so wouldn't be able to use a longer reflector in their SF TH. My two lumens, :shrug:


----------



## Illum (Aug 13, 2010)

Kestrel said:


> If this was designed in such a manner, it would probably reduce the potential market somewhat - a lot of folks (like me) have the KT1/2 non-shock-isolated TH's, and so wouldn't be able to use a longer reflector in their SF TH. My two lumens, :shrug:



as long as the retaining ring is removable and the shock isolating parts have been kept and not tossed market value should not decrease assuming it is replaced to original condition at the point of sale:thumbsup:


----------



## cryhavok (Aug 13, 2010)

Illum said:


> as long as the retaining ring is removable and the shock isolating parts have been kept and not tossed market value should not decrease assuming it is replaced to original condition at the point of sale:thumbsup:



I think by "market" he means how many people will be able to use it, not the resale value.

Anyway, it is up to Fivemega as to how he will come up with another innovative way to upgrade an already awesome flashlight. I think at this point it is best to just have a stock size reflector so everyone with a turbohead will be able to enjoy some new life in their flashlight. A V2 Deep reflector can be made later down the road 

So...who else want's to give their Surefire some killer throw:twothumbs


----------



## cryhavok (Aug 17, 2010)

:bump:


----------



## Mettee (Aug 17, 2010)




----------



## Mettee (Aug 19, 2010)




----------



## bigchelis (Aug 19, 2010)

nice pictures..

No shock isolation needed and its nice and smooth.


Now put some assembled pictures please


----------



## Mettee (Aug 19, 2010)

Dimensions and sizing are being finalized. The final should retain shock isolation and require no modifications. 
There was no gain to be had by removing shock isolation nor did it make the design harder. About a week and 
there will be better images that are more in depth. A lot of sweat is going into this, literally :laughing: please pardon the dust.


----------



## bigchelis (Aug 19, 2010)

You should really make it without the shock isolation because you are loosing at least 10% (as much as 20% with stock lens) of the lumens.

The loss in lumens is in the spill, so your hotspot will look the same. 


I for one would love to see you make it as pictured with no shock isolation to maximize on out the front lumens, but yes for lux it makes no differencce.

bigC


----------



## Mettee (Aug 19, 2010)

So are you thinking UCL lens? Is that what you are referring to with attributes to % loss?

The parabola will control spill and spot so....The shock isolation does just that, it cant influence spill/flood or spot. We are also limited by the bezel size, there is no sense having a reflector that has a aperture larger than the bezel opening.

I have tested these reflectors back to back with others like FM, MCRXXX, etc. I notice an improvement. And one you can see with the naked eye, so that says a lot. I can try and dig up a comparison beam shot if anyone would like. 

Without being overly technical, these reflectors kick ***


----------



## Justin Case (Aug 19, 2010)

When you recess the reflector to fit a shock system, the TH shell and bezel mask some of the light output, cutting the overall lumens measured in a sphere.

IMO the cited 10% loss figure, all in the spill, seems hardly worth the bother compared to the benefit of having a shock system to protect the bulb's filament.

I would also go with Borofloat, not UCL, to provide for a more robust TH when using high-powered bulbs. Yeah, you lose another 4% or so.

IMO, equally or more important than the OTF lumens is the beam pattern.


----------



## 1wrx7 (Aug 19, 2010)

I hate to be a party pooper but, the KT1/KT2 turboheads do not have a removeable reflector. The reflector is a machined surface in the head. The bezel rings are interchangabe, my KT1 sports a scalloped bezel from a KT4 instead of the plastic one it came with. 

I hope this doesn't stop this reflector from being made. I've seen the difference using LED tower module's with a smooth reflector in a SF turbohead compared to the OP type. No surprise... the smooth throws significantly better. This is a great idea:thumbsup:... I might be in for one.


----------



## cryhavok (Aug 19, 2010)

Mettee :thumbsup:

That looks incredible.

How did you remove the bezel ring?

Is the bulb opening the same size as the stock reflector? 

When these become available, pleeeese save one for me and send a pm! I don't get much free time to come on the board and I definitely don't want to miss this.


----------



## Not So Bright (Aug 19, 2010)

They look great.

I'm in for one or two, depending on the price.


----------



## alantch (Aug 19, 2010)

Wow, I'm all for throw in my lights. In for 1 or 2 depending on price. Shock isolation is not important to me personally, so if it can be made that way so much the better. The more reflective surface for the light source the better, logically thinking to me, that is :thumbsup:


----------



## Kestrel (Aug 19, 2010)

1wrx7 said:


> I hate to be a party pooper but, the KT1/KT2 turboheads do not have a removeable reflector. The reflector is a machined surface in the head.


This is for certain, then? :sigh: I might have liked this for my SF KT1/2 TH...


----------



## 1wrx7 (Aug 20, 2010)

Kestrel said:


> This is for certain, then? :sigh: I might have liked this for my SF KT1/2 TH...


 

I'm 98% sure. I think this is a reason some people like that version of TH for high output incans. It has more heatsinking capabillity than the shock isolated head.


----------



## DaFABRICATA (Aug 20, 2010)

As 1WRX7 has stated, the reflector is NOT removable in the KT1/KT2 turboheads. 100% positive.

I am in for 1 or 2 for the KT4 depending on price.

Those pics look awesome!!!


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Aug 20, 2010)

I'm in for at least one of these if this product comes to fruition.


----------



## Mettee (Aug 20, 2010)

I am trying to retain shock isolation due to the fact that the bezel is only so big. I am thinking the reflector will end up closer to the lens. That is to allow proper focus since the parabola is much different than the stock reflector. That will aid in keeping the bulb holder in the correct position for focus with all bulbs and bulb sockets.

*How many of your are going to be white wall hunting with this set up?* _(I know, dumb question but please answer...)_

And please keep giving feedback and posting interest, I am working hard to make this happen.

Beam shot comparisons will be done of course once a final proto is done, including stock and aftermarket bulbs...etc.


----------



## wquiles (Aug 21, 2010)

Nice project 

Subscribed!


----------



## JetskiMark (Aug 21, 2010)

Mettee said:


> <Snip> *How many of your are going to be white wall hunting with this set up?*



My guess; the vast majority.

I know I will shine it at the wall when I first install it. But real world performance is what matters most to me.


----------



## Mettee (Aug 22, 2010)

This reflector is literally mirror like, it will produce a image of the filament on a wall at close range. If you are like me and you want to use the light for real use that wont matter. 

Just to put that out there now, this will not be your orange peel set up, but it will throw and get the lumen out the front


----------



## Mettee (Aug 22, 2010)

Compare the two...Mcr27L VS 28mm with SST-50. Not incan but you get the point.

Mcr27L






28mm


----------



## wquiles (Aug 22, 2010)

Mettee said:


> This reflector is literally mirror like, it will produce a image of the filament on a wall at close range. If you are like me and you want to use the light for real use that wont matter.


Since I have two M6's, this will be ideal for one of them - very nice project


----------



## oldways (Aug 22, 2010)

My vlop (almost smooth) M6 MagnumLight projects the filament image like that. My Guardian op does not and there is considerable difference in the throw.

I would be interested in the smooth reflector for the Guardian.


----------



## Mettee (Aug 22, 2010)

cryhavok said:


> Mettee :thumbsup:
> 
> That looks incredible.
> 
> ...



Sorry Sir, 

I meant to respond to this before...

This Bezel was easy to get off, just the right tool is all it takes. Some heat too!

The bulb opening on that reflector is not the final version and is bigger than stock(.600). But the final proto will be correct in dimension :thumbsup:

It may even be that we can make these with bigger bulb openings for Phillips bulbs and or Osram if there is demand. Not completely sure but I think that "adjustment" is doable.


----------



## Justin Case (Aug 22, 2010)

A collar with OD to fit the reflector opening and ID to fit the tower stem of an FM MN bi-pin socket would allow you to use a bigger reflector opening to fit bulbs like the 5761 and 64250, which sometimes are just slightly too big to fit a stock SF TH.


----------



## hron61 (Aug 23, 2010)

I'LL TAKE ONE
when they become available.


lovecpf


----------



## one2tim (Aug 23, 2010)

Ill be up for 1 too if i can use it in my soon to arrive megallanium.


----------



## hron61 (Aug 23, 2010)

one2tim said:


> Ill be up for 1 too if i can use it in my soon to arrive megallanium.


 

thats right...just rub it in.


----------



## my_gentle_cry (Aug 24, 2010)




----------



## Dioni (Aug 24, 2010)

Wow.. very cool!!


----------



## Mettee (Aug 26, 2010)

UPDATE...

This is moving forward as we speak. Good things are happening and hopefully we call all be patient enough for it. Should be a pretty schweet set up :thumbsup:

What I have seen in testing with reflectors that have not yet been optimised is already a dramatic change for the better in throw and overall output.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Aug 26, 2010)

Mettee said:


> UPDATE...
> 
> This is moving forward as we speak. Good things are happening and hopefully we call all be patient enough for it. Should be a pretty schweet set up :thumbsup:
> 
> What I have seen in testing with reflectors that have not yet been optimised is already a dramatic change for the better in throw and overall output.



This is awesome news! Do you expect that this will be a limited run item or an openly available item for some time once the prototyping is complete?


----------



## Mettee (Aug 26, 2010)

should be open....you may have to wait a short while for more to be made.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Sep 3, 2010)

Any updates?


----------



## Mettee (Sep 3, 2010)

It is being developed yes, the original parabola was tossed in favor of one that will allow better fitment. And it will fit much in the same way as the stock reflector. Should be pretty neat, the only part I am not settled on myself is the removal tool. I know "RPM" has some he makes. *Would most of you rather one be offered with the reflector?*


----------



## oldways (Sep 3, 2010)

Mettee said:


> It is being developed yes, the original parabola was tossed in favor of one that will allow better fitment. And it will fit much in the same way as the stock reflector. Should be pretty neat, the only part I am not settled on myself is the removal tool. I know "RPM" has some he makes. *Would most of you rather one be offered with the reflector?*



Yes I would want the tool.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Sep 3, 2010)

Glad to hear there is progress. I think a removal tool should at the very least be offered as and optional purchase. 

I am sure heat will be required to loosen the glue on the head, but I have nothing to torque the head with as much as will be required to really break the seal and lock it in place after the reflector swap.


----------



## alantch (Sep 4, 2010)

Fantastic to hear there is progress on this. Yes to making the tool available as an option.


----------



## Mettee (Sep 6, 2010)

Seems that the posts about the smashed foam are gone so here are a few pics of what I encounter with mine. 
I sourced, and have a dark grey silicon on the way so I can test it, should fix the problem.

The foam does block some of the reflector, that is what I want to avoid. 











relaxed





Spring has even been "softened/shortened. I might also do the positive spring to see if that helps.


----------



## Justin Case (Sep 6, 2010)

My KT4 foam is not excessively compressed when using an FM MN bi-pin adapter.

Instead of a stiffer foam cushioning, perhaps a piece that is simply not as tall would work for those setups that show excessive compression of the shock foam. It seems that the reflector is being pushed upward toward the bezel ring too much.

I would want a bezel ring removal tool.


----------



## Mettee (Sep 6, 2010)

JC, what spring are you using? And do you have a picture, or can you post a picture of what you experience?

The reason I am trying to cover all these things is because so many times a product is brought to the table and it does not cover all the bases. It is important to me to get these reflectors to people who want them, and to have them work as they should. Problems arise, but I want to have solutions when they do because I know they will. 

As far as the silicon replacement I think it will allow us all to use a hard spring or something that assures the most current capability. With stock bulbs that might not be needed but it would be a lot better than the foam period.


----------



## cryhavok (Sep 14, 2010)




----------



## Mettee (Sep 24, 2010)

Teaser shot, one for the FM3X head. Prototype for the M6 is being worked on now, and testing to start soon hopefully.


----------



## UnderTheWeepingMoon (Sep 24, 2010)

Mettee, count me in for one reflector, plus a borofloat window. 

By any chance, would you also be able to supply a thicker o-ring to replace the M6's window seal? I am using an aftermarket bezel and don't think the window seal is compressed adequately.


----------



## Mettee (Sep 24, 2010)

The stock M6 lens is float glass so that is good and does not need to be replaced. I can source a silicon o-ring, I just received silicon sheet in gray .093 thickness to replicate the foam shock isolator in a better material. I bet there is a standard o-ring out there that will work well we just have to find it.

The stock o-ring is about .100 thick, how much more do you think it will need?


----------



## UnderTheWeepingMoon (Sep 24, 2010)

Mettee said:


> The stock M6 lens in float glass so that is good and does not need to be replaced. I can source a silicon o-ring, I just received silicon sheet in gray .093 thickness to replicate the foam shock isolator in a better material. I bet there is a standard o-ring out there that will work well we just have to find it.
> 
> The stock o-ring is about .100 thick, how much more do you think it will need?



Maybe 0.150 thick will do it, if there's a standard o-ring in that size. I think an extra 50% thickness should be plenty for a good seal.


----------



## Mettee (Sep 25, 2010)

Who wants pictures 

Ok here is how I replaced my foam in the KT4 head. I mean come on, foam is not going to last and especially with the 
hotter bulbs we are all using, under the higher spring pressure the bi pin socket has. My foam is cracking and is totally 
smashed with the set up I run now. I like things to be bullet proof, so I took up the challenge to make it that way while 
working on this project. 

Tools





Material sample first cut. 





Cut a piece to the exact size of stock foam.





Started out with this, stock white plastic ring in place.





Well first try was a bit long, figured it would be as the silicon has different durometer.





Silicon goes in easy as pie, just like the stock foam.





Like a glove :naughty:










Now assembly






Black ring that supports the shock isolation.





O-ring





Glass, if you can see it. oo:





Flat black washer to protect glass from bezel.





Bezel


----------



## Dioni (Sep 25, 2010)

Nice post Mettee! :thumbsup:

lovecpf


----------



## Mettee (Sep 30, 2010)

Sorry, cell phone pics for now.


----------



## Dioni (Sep 30, 2010)

lovecpf


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Sep 30, 2010)

Very nice pics - I've been trying like heck to loosen up the head on one of my KT4s and it is on really tight.


----------



## Mettee (Oct 1, 2010)

Wait a little bit plans are to supply a removal tool with these if individuals need them. 

It does take some heat and a very good holding device, you have to put some torque on it  Some heads I have done, steam from boiling water worked, but I was not trying to save the internals. You may want to keep the stock reflector in good shape and not get it wet Although I have to add nothing on the inside ever gets wet on ones I have boiled, just never a KT4. With the KT4 it probably would condense moisture since the head is open.


----------



## alantch (Oct 1, 2010)

Looks fantastic mettee. Timeline and guestimate $$?


----------



## Mettee (Oct 1, 2010)

Time line is soon, that is the best I can do. I still need to provide all you good guys with beam shots and such  I am going to test it for about a week and record my findings and report back on it. I should have the proto in my hand early next week. As soon as I get it I plan on beam shots vs the stock reflector.

I do not have a cost estimate, it is not solely me that is deciding on the cost. We will be supplying bezel removal tools more than likely to those who wish to purchase one with their reflector. And possibly silicon shock isolation replacement material.

I can say it will be a very fair price for all the work that goes into these, and they are coming to you from some of the best guys out there.

I call these space quality reflectors....N.A.S.A. :laughing:

*May I ask, what do ya'll think is a fair price, as I myself do know what it will be?*


----------



## Justin Case (Oct 1, 2010)

As a comp, the FiveMega Ver2 Deep Mag Reflector is $40 (camless), which also includes some anodizing work. So IMO, that's the upper bound.


----------



## Mettee (Oct 1, 2010)

This product is not even in the same field as FM products, so... that is like apples to oranges


----------



## Mettee (Oct 1, 2010)

Mettee said:


> JC, what spring are you using? And do you have a picture, or can you post a picture of what you experience?



And this question is still unanswered. I would like to see what you experience in your M6


----------



## Justin Case (Oct 2, 2010)

Mettee said:


> This product is not even in the same field as FM products, so... that is like apples to oranges



You wanted feedback on price and you got it. If you think you have some sort of super superior product, then I'd rather see specific examples of why that is so, instead of a mere proclamation. Your "crackup" icon also doesn't endear yourself. If you want feedback, then be prepared for what you get.


----------



## Justin Case (Oct 2, 2010)

Mettee said:


> And this question is still unanswered. I would like to see what you experience in your M6



I'm using whatever the stock spring is that came with my FM MN tower. No I don't have a picture.


----------



## Mettee (Oct 2, 2010)

Feed back on the price is appreciated, thanks. It was more the comparison to the other product that the icon was meant for. Since I have seen and used these in other lights, obviously I know the difference. As I posted earlier a prototype is on the way to me, and early next week you should get the "proof" you are looking for, that everyone is looking for.

As I said a price is not set in stone, I know it will be more than $40 and hoping for $70 or less. The bezel tool and replacement silicon shock isolation material are separate and optional. 

I am excited to get beam shots up and show you why I am excited in this set up. I know what it can do, some of the previous beam shots should have shown the potential. I can say that the output with these reflectors is substantially improved and can be seen with the eye(well at least my eye:huh

Please keep the feedback coming.


----------



## Mettee (Oct 2, 2010)

Couple reflectors...






From the red, up and to the left to the third larger reflector, notice the difference in reflectivity. It should show a difference between the red(FM deep), the second, and third reflector. Each of the 3 has a different coating.


----------



## Justin Case (Oct 2, 2010)

Since you've designed the new reflector already, what's the difficulty in describing the technical details now? Why do you have to wait for the prototype to arrive?

Your space-age NASA reflector uses a low loss reflector coating that gives >95% reflectivity from 400nm to 700nm? Coating deposited using ion beam sputtering dep? Reflector curvature and finish that work just as well with "point source"-type bulbs like the SF N1, as well as the more "bar"-style filaments like with the MN16? Coating can withstand continuous heat from hot-running bulbs like the Philips 5761?


----------



## Mettee (Oct 2, 2010)

Not sure I understand your "tech talk" justin.

Fact is, I never said I designed anything, just that I am working on it.

I am sure that most of the other people here don't know what you are talking about either.

I am sure the beam shots will tell the story enough, like I have said three times now. 

Seems like you want to fight or something justin, if you cant keep it positive please leave the thread.


----------



## Justin Case (Oct 2, 2010)

It's simple -- you made the claim that it's apples-oranges comparing your reflector to something like an FM Ver2 Deep Mag Reflector. It is reasonable to assume that you have some factual basis right now (not waiting for a prototype to arrive) for making such a claim. So what is your factual basis?

My questions have nothing to do with being positive or negative. It's about seeking facts rather than accepting mere claims without proof.

Tech talk? You claimed "space quality reflectors....N.A.S.A." I figured you know tech. Guess not? What does "space quality" mean? I figured it meant ion beam sputtered coatings.

Here's the deal -- the various SF TH reflectors work better for some filament shapes than others. For example, the old SRTH works better with smaller, point source type filaments than the bigger filaments such as on an MN16. Vice versa for the KT4. If you have a reflector design that works across the board, IMO that is a big deal.

>95% reflectivity? That's a low loss reflector. You do realize that reflector loss is a component of the overall lumens loss when going from bulb lumens to OTF lumens, right?

Coating can withstand the heat? Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

Ion beam sputtering. Google is your friend. Uniform, repeatable, durable, dense coatings.


----------



## Mettee (Oct 2, 2010)

Did you not see the reflector that I have in hand right now that I have tried? 

Like I said, for the 4th time, beam shots will be fact enough. I dont need to waste time on you and your pathetic attempt to come off "intellectual", in your own words. 

I said NASA in a joking fun way to let you know they were top notch and perform as such...you assume a lot. You know what they say about that.

Like I said, proto on the way for testing. Sorry you are unable to read. That will tell me a lot about other bulbs, as I have already said, for the 3rd time about different bulbs.

I am not sure of the reflectivity rating right now, and I am not concerned as much as you right now. It is being developed, as in, not done. The reflectivity of these is much much better than the FM deep reflector you mentioned, and I know this through testing.

Durability, again, testing to come shortly. Sorry you cant read yet again.

No, no, google is your friend. 

As I said before, you are not helping, I dont like your tone, you bring nothing to help. If you know so much, please explain. If not, dont post again.

Anyhow, sorry to all of you that are waiting for beam shots and have to deal with this. The first one should arrive soon for testing and I will let ya'll know what I find.


----------



## alantch (Oct 3, 2010)

I guess the upper price range for me would be around $60 shipped for the reflector and cushion material. You showed a 3" version for the FM3X head earlier - would you be producing those too and sort of material would be the opener be made off?


----------



## Mettee (Oct 3, 2010)

Good input. Thanks. Like I said I am not the one deciding the price but its good to know so I can make a suggestion. Whatever the price ends up at will more than fair.

The almost 3 inch version requires some custom fitting to the head as the parabolas size is a little to big towards the vertex end. It hits a small amount but it was easy to correct since its only a small amount. I will get pics up later on when I finish that build to show you exactly what I mean. 

The reason I am so excited about these, and the reason I talk them up is because I have seen them perform. The difference is measurable with my naked eye.


----------



## Mettee (Oct 3, 2010)

I wanted to add that I am not actually making any money on this at all. I am just helping get the product out.

ETA: This is fun for me and that is why I do this, that is the reason for my above post. Its a challenge, to learn and test myself.


----------



## cryhavok (Oct 3, 2010)

Looking forward to seeing the test results :thumbsup:

I think around $50-60 for the reflector and $10-15 for the bezel removal tool is a fair price. I appreciate you answering the calling for this much needed niche mod. I have a feeling they are going to sell like hotcakes once we get some real world comparison beamshots.


----------



## Mettee (Oct 4, 2010)

Thought I would post on today's findings....

As far as the Ion beam deposition, that is entirely possible, but it will be at a much greater cost. "E gun" deposition would have to be out sourced since the location these reflectors are made does not have that equipment. I agree that its a fantastic approach to coating and making a durable reflective surface but its just not in the cards for this unless we want to increase the cost drastically. And that is primarily why I approach this in the manner I do. We all know that IF we had all the money and time in the world that anything is possible...but it probably wont fit the bill in this application 

Now it's entirely possible that we may have to use another coating that can stand up long term to bulbs like the 1185, and 1909. I think the most popular bulb for the M6 is the 1185, but some may argue. The way the reflector is set up(the prototype), it is able to withstand tested temperatures around 280F. There are other options for coating these and I know that. But for now the vacuum deposited aluminum will be enough to test with. With the reflectors I have here now, they have been able to take the heat from the 1185 no problem but have not been inside the sealed M6 head. That is what the upcoming testing is there for  If the reflector does its job the heat should not be a problem.

I plan to test with all stock surefire bulbs that the M6 comes with, maybe a few Lumens Factory, WA bulbs(1111,1185), and the 1909. Any other bulbs that you positive contributing members can think of? I feel that should give everyone a really good idea of what to expect.

Hopefully everyone has seen the beam shots I posted on page 2 post #50. They show the difference between and Mcr20L and a reflector made by this same company in a comparable size. That shot is taken with a sony TX5 hand held on twilight mode. So there is of course more detail that did not get picked up, but it really shows what they can do.

Cryhavok, I have seen these in use in person in lights I have built, they do the job well, that is why I come across so excited and talk them up so much. I agree with you.


----------



## Mettee (Oct 5, 2010)

Ok guys, going to move this over to  *Homemade and Modified Flashlights Discussion *. Lets carry on there.

Test part is in, and a few pics for you.


----------

