Arc FAQ claims

[stringj]

Peter,
Thanks for having left this thread open long enough for me to learn about that cool feature called ignore this user.
Jerry

 

[geek]

Will it be possible to retrofit an existing Arc4 with the improved switch mechanism? Will the parts be made available to current owners?

 

[gadget_lover]

I find it interesting that people have suggested that the common dictionary definitions are lacking, and that their definition should be used. Flashlight VS headlamp VS handheld, for instance.

The purpose of a dictionary is to provide a common reference of common words so that all of us use them to mean the same things.

Re-definning words and phrases is very popular in legal documents. The "Basic Package(tm)" was sold by Pacific Bell sales folks for $49 per month when people asked for just "basic service"($12 a month). That practice, by the way, cost Pac Bell millions in fines.

Someone went so far as to say that Henry didn't sell enough lights to satisfy the "First to market" phrase. He sold them. They were marketed. The proof is that everyone here agrees that he sold them.

If one wants to redefine words, one should spell out the definition.

Please don't assume that I'm a henry supprter or Peter hater. I don't really care for the engineering of the ARC 4 and do own several ARC lights. I like what I've read that Peter's stated publicly. I just feel that contracts and assertions are only understandable when we all use the same definitions.


Daniel

P.S. I know there are many dictionaries, and that they don't all agree. It's amazing how much they do agree.

 

[djpark]

English is not my native tongue and I refer to Longman and Oxford together when I study. How true what you said.

Though there may not be much left to argue about the contents of the starting post, I can read between the lines. Of course I am writing between the lines, too.

Just my 2 sen!

-- dj

 

[John N]

I think people are not being real objective here. While I haven't followed the issues between these two companies very carefully, it would seem that people are letting their feelings for Peter as a CPF personality get in the way.

From an abstract perspective, Arc makes claims and challenges anyone to dispute them. When Henry does so in the forum that he was supposed to, everyone jumps on his case.

I'd like to remind everyone that we don't really know the facts, we just know Peter as a CPF personality. Remember, this is the Internet, folks. For all we know Peter is totally in the wrong and is just s*rewing Henry over big time. Not that I'm suggesting that is the case. I suspect it is more likely that both Peter and Henry are right and both are wrong. The whole and real truth are hard things to pin down and they look very real from your own personal perspective (you tend to think you are right).

And it isn't like this is one sided. Peter has obviously taken some swipes himself. He just tends to be better at it. Note his last post in this thread:

[ QUOTE ]
Gransee said:
Sure Newbie, I can comment on that again. The engineering on the Rev2 was done by Henry. This was one of his last projects before leaving us.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I was hoping to have the switch fixed with the second revision. Talk about a dissapointment.

[/ QUOTE ]

The other thing we should consider is that Internet popularity contests aside, my guess is there is very real posturing for the right to make these lights. Wouldn't you consider that in a patent conflict, claims like Peter has made in the FAQ might serve to strengthen his case against Henry? If you were Henry, wouldn't you want to dispute that?

Or, even if that isn't the case, when you feel like you are s*rewed, don't you have a tend to want to set it right, and of course, the more you try to show that you were right the worse it comes off.

All in all, I'd like to comment that every light in this list broke new ground:

HDS Actionlight 1
Arc AAA
Arc LS
Arc 4

Obviously both Henry and Peter have contributed to this community.

I find it very sad that things have fallen apart for these folks. My biggest worry is that their fight will destroy both companies. It certainly isn't far fetched.

I hope everyone can let things go and hopefully we can see positive contributions from both companies in the future.

Maybe we can all do our part by lightening up a bit!

-john

 

[HDS_Systems]

[ QUOTE ]
Gransee: Sure Newbie, I can comment on that again. The engineering on the Rev2 was done by Henry. This was one of his last projects before leaving us.

[/ QUOTE ]

The part revisions for the Rev2 were never prototyped, tested or released for production by me or my company. In other words, the Rev2 project was never completed. Since I had no control over which parts were used in production or any other aspect of the production process, it would be inappropriate to blame me for the problems encountered with taking the Rev2 into production.

I have lectured Peter on the dangers of taking untested designs into production on many occasions. I like to make sure I have properly tested a design and that it will not have problems in production - which is why things sometimes take longer than expected. If you encounter a significant problem late in the development cycle, you should fix it before it goes to production.

Henry.

 

[Gransee]

I am sorry. I think I misunderstood the question. I thought Newbie asked if Henry was involved in the rev2 project.


As to putting what turned out to be a flawed drawing into production, that was my full responsibility. There should be no doubt. Ultimately, it is my responsibilty that everything that happens under the Arc roof is according to the company ideals and mission.

I apologize to our supporters for the lights that were shipped with problems. Thank you for your patience as we fix each problem one by one.

Peter Gransee

 

[cy]

[ QUOTE ]
HDS_Systems said:
[ QUOTE ]
Gransee: Sure Newbie, I can comment on that again. The engineering on the Rev2 was done by Henry. This was one of his last projects before leaving us.

[/ QUOTE ]

The part revisions for the Rev2 were never prototyped, tested or released for production by me or my company. In other words, the Rev2 project was never completed. Since I had no control over which parts were used in production or any other aspect of the production process, it would be inappropriate to blame me for the problems encountered with taking the Rev2 into production.

I have lectured Peter on the dangers of taking untested designs into production on many occasions. I like to make sure I have properly tested a design and that it will not have problems in production - which is why things sometimes take longer than expected. If you encounter a significant problem late in the development cycle, you should fix it before it goes to production.

Henry.

[/ QUOTE ]As someone that has spent a number of hours trying to figure out a fix for the Arc4 switch. I find it amazing as the alleged designer of the Arc4, you claim credit for its features, but will not accept responsibity for the subpar (being generous) switch design.

The design for arc4 Rev1 and Rev2 switch are the same except for the tweeks trying to fix the original design issues. From the limited samples I've been able to measure. there is only a .017 length difference from rev1 to rev2.

There is no way that a production design should be this sensitive to battery lengths.

Who are you to lecture to Peter about production. From someone that has produced less than 200 units (please correct if I wrong) in the last five years to Peter's thousands of units in the field in the same time frame.

Please note that the tailcap mod 1.2 which solves most of the Arc4 switching issues is the only Arc4 mod (except aluminum foil type fixes)posted on cpf.

 

[Zvi]

[ QUOTE ]
cy said:

[/ QUOTE ]
I find it amazing as the alleged designer of the Arc4, you claim credit for its features, but will not accept responsibity for the subpar (being generous) switch design.
As I understood from HDS messages he admits there were probs with switch design, and didn't want that to go production, which was not his decision, so what should he be held responsible for?

Who are you to lecture to Peter about production.
What HDS said above was lecturing "on the dangers of taking untested designs into production". Which doesn't require to produce too many units before you come to that conclusion. Besides if they worked together for long time and Arc4 was designed by HDS & Peter I'd think it'd be ok For Henry to express his opinion. I am not sure how appropriate lecturing was, people don't really like it /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
But anyway, to answer your question, he was the guy who designed the light and he had all the rights to express his opinon regarding. Obviously that lecturing took place back then when they were working together, I doubt it'd happen later after they broke up.

Regarding the whole thing - I don't know what happened between HDS and Arc, and I'm not taking sides w/o knowing the details, but in this particular thread I don't see what HDS did wrong, by challenging Arc public claims which Arc actually invited to callenge.

 

[cy]

[ QUOTE ]
Zvi said:
[ QUOTE ]
cy said:

[/ QUOTE ]
I find it amazing as the alleged designer of the Arc4, you claim credit for its features, but will not accept responsibity for the subpar (being generous) switch design.
As I understood from HDS messages he admits there were probs with switch design, and didn't want that to go production, which was not his decision, so what should he be held responsible for?

Who are you to lecture to Peter about production.
What HDS said above was lecturing "on the dangers of taking untested designs into production". Which doesn't require to produce too many units before you come to that conclusion. Besides if they worked together for long time and Arc4 was designed by HDS & Peter I'd think it'd be ok For Henry to express his opinion. I am not sure how appropriate lecturing was, people don't really like it /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
But anyway, to answer your question, he was the guy who designed the light and he had all the rights to express his opinon regarding. Obviously that lecturing took place back then when they were working together, I doubt it'd happen later after they broke up.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand what a cope out answer the above is. The rev1 & rev2 switch design is exactly the same, except for minor tweeks to try to correct the shortcoming.

I've been trying stay out of this switch issue until now, but that condescending comment above, lecturing to Peter about production was just too much.

There were no design changes between rev1 and rev2. The base switch problem remained from rev1 to rev2. do you realize a .017in difference between the two is very_small. that's only several typewriter pages thick. To maintain that small of a tolarance in production is a testimant on the strict quality control in place at Arc.

The problem with the switch is the design. There has been so much smoke thrown about, it really clouds up the real issue.

I've spent too many hours analyzing the arc4 switch to be blind side by more smoke.

 

[thesurefire]

[ QUOTE ]
cy said:
[ QUOTE ]
Zvi said:
[ QUOTE ]
cy said:

[/ QUOTE ]
I find it amazing as the alleged designer of the Arc4, you claim credit for its features, but will not accept responsibity for the subpar (being generous) switch design.
As I understood from HDS messages he admits there were probs with switch design, and didn't want that to go production, which was not his decision, so what should he be held responsible for?

Who are you to lecture to Peter about production.
What HDS said above was lecturing "on the dangers of taking untested designs into production". Which doesn't require to produce too many units before you come to that conclusion. Besides if they worked together for long time and Arc4 was designed by HDS & Peter I'd think it'd be ok For Henry to express his opinion. I am not sure how appropriate lecturing was, people don't really like it /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
But anyway, to answer your question, he was the guy who designed the light and he had all the rights to express his opinon regarding. Obviously that lecturing took place back then when they were working together, I doubt it'd happen later after they broke up.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand what a cope out answer the above is. The rev1 & rev2 switch design is exactly the same, except for minor tweeks to try to correct the shortcoming.

I've been trying stay out of this switch issue until now, but that condescending comment above, lecturing to Peter about production was just too much.

There were no design changes between rev1 and rev2. The base switch problem remained from rev1 to rev2. do you realize a .017in difference between the two is very_small. that's only several typewriter pages thick. To maintain that small of a tolarance in production is a testimant on the strict quality control in place at Arc.

The problem with the switch is the design. There has been so much smoke thrown about, it really clouds up the real issue.

I've spent too many hours analyzing the arc4 switch to be blind side by more smoke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being that I don't own a Arc 4+, could someone explain the problem(s) with the switch? I understand that it seems to be hard to click but whats the big deal? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[IlluminatingBikr]

Ahhh nvm, it's not worth what it would have caused.

 

[kj]

In some cases, the light cannot be lit up.

Some think the Rev1 switch is okay but the Rev2 switch has a problem. Some think the Arc4 switch has a fundamental design problem. I don't think both parties are in the same ballpark.

Initially, Peter was thinking both the Rev1 and Rev2 switch were okay (so he shipped them), but I'm not sure what Peter is thinking right now.

 

[NewBie]

[ QUOTE ]
cy said:
There were no design changes between rev1 and rev2. The base switch problem remained from rev1 to rev2. do you realize a .017in difference between the two is very_small. that's only several typewriter pages thick. To maintain that small of a tolarance in production is a testimant on the strict quality control in place at Arc.


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay cy, whats the travel on the snapdome (aka tact switch) switch that is used in the ARC4+?



Not the large gold leaf over the switch, but the dome switch assembly itself?

I'd be inclined to believe that the travel range on the chosen switch could quite easily be part of the fundamental issue. A fella could go with a raw snapdome of much larger size, and or force, and it would have quite alot more travel too. The kickback is damped a lot by the 123 battery mass.

( for an example of something similar to what is in the ARC4, look at http://www.ittcannon.com/media/pdf/catalogs/ed_domes.pdf and note 0.012 to 0.0157 inches of travel )

 

[Turd_Ferguson]

I measure the maximum travel of the switch at approximately 1/100 of an inch give or take a few thousanths. The problem is the maximum travel of the switch is far from the center of the contact. At the center of my contact, you can't depress the switch more than 1/1000th of an inch. In other words, it appears the switch is not centered properly or perhaps the contact disk does not flex properly in the center to make proper switch travel possible. I'm inclined to the off center switch problem. Switch travel at 2 and 10 o'clock are non existant but at 6 o'clock, full switch travel is possible.

 

[cy]

[ QUOTE ]
NewBie said:
[ QUOTE ]
cy said:
There were no design changes between rev1 and rev2. The base switch problem remained from rev1 to rev2. do you realize a .017in difference between the two is very_small. that's only several typewriter pages thick. To maintain that small of a tolerance in production is a testament on the strict quality control in place at Arc.


[/ QUOTE ]
Okay cy, whats the travel on the snapdome switch inside?
Not the large gold leaf over the switch, but the dome switch assembly itself?

I'd be inclined to believe that the travel range on the chosen switch could quite easily be part of the fundamental issue. A fella could go with a raw snapdome of much larger size, and or force, and it would have quite alot more travel too. The kickback is damped alot by the 123 battery mass.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is the snapdome switch the domed switch assembly you are referring to the rubber cap, aluminum plunger, hat washer and gold disc. or do you mean the micro-switch in front.

I've posted a detailed failure analysis of arc4 switch awhile back. I'll cover a few points here.

The micro switch's travel can make a huge difference in the sensitivity of the arc4's to battery length. some of the micro-switches ended with very limited travel. Those particular arc4's are hyper-sensitive to battery length issues. When .015in tolerance makes the difference between functioning correctly or have possible battery contact issue and/or hard to operate switch problems. It's the switch design not the manufacturing process.

A flaw in the design is where the gold disc is at rest. If you take the time to measure where the resting position of the gold disc is. You will find that the gold disc is resting aprox. .065in from neutral or flat position in rev1, add .017 for rev2. You are talking about a .0125in gold disc that has to deform up to .125in operating the mirco-swith and maintaining contact with the battery at all times and deliver up to 1.5 amps to the circuit from a resting position. Talk about a tuff job for the gold disc!

Tailcap mod 1.2 changes the resting position of the gold disc to a neutral or near flat position. And using a flat rubber disc changes the switch into a protected one.

This simple mod neatly solves several issues at the same time:

1. changes gold disc into a neutral/flat position
2. improves battery contact
3. improves battery length tolerance (limited by micro-switch's quality)
4. protects the switch from accidental activation
5. protects the from micro-switch from direct impact death
6. improves switch feel into a tactile feel (limited by micro-switch's quality)
7. shortens the overall length of Arc4, improving form factor
8. easily reversible with a spare gold disc

I have the greatest respect for Arc's quality controls. They didn't earn a reputation for having the finest LED products on the planet by having poor quality controls in place.

Arc is in the process of redesigning this switch and will solve this issue. In the mean while the reports back from fixed Rev2 switches have been overwhelming positive. This switch can be fixed by factory tweaks (and tailcap mod 1.2). It's just not very cost effective to individually fix each Ac4 switch.

This is exactly what Arc is doing. Standing up, taking the hit and fixing each and every Arc4 first. What customer service!!! If this doesn't give you confidence in Arc's customer service, I don't know what will.

 

[NewBie]

The "microswitch in front", take a look at the link for the pdf.

 

[cy]

Newbie, thanks for the link to the pdf.

my Rev1 micro-switch's travel measures aprox .022in. I'm measuring this with mitutoyo 6in digital calipers instead of a proper depth guage (which I don't have). Based upon a limited number of arc4 modded, switch travel veri. mod will only be good as switch.

Measurement was taken by measuring distance from batt base to batt tube lip, then depressing micro-switch and re-measuring.

Tailcap mod 1.3 hopefully will solve battery length issues (limited to quality of micro-switch).

 

[NewBie]

cy,

Unfortunately, the gold "flat spring contact" over the microswitch does not necessarily touch the microswitch. A strand of 40/32/22/18 guage enameled wire can be snuck under there to determine the gap. Also keep in mind, it can vary alot from light to light, unless fixtured, as things of that low mass have a tendency to float a bit during the soldering process, and will vary from unit to unit.

With my Rev.2, with all the factory switch fixes, I found it to be greatly improved by creating a larger gap between this gold disk and the snapdome based microswitch (or tact switch). Better travel, snappier click, better audible feedback, better tactile feedback.

I'd nearly swear this switch was pre-loaded on mine (partially depressed)...

 

[JohnJ80]

Close this thread.

Henry needs to move on and produce his stuff. Then if he is as good as he says he is, his products and service will speak for that.

j