flashlightlens.com, UCL Size accuracy

[sosemot728]

I have tried emailing the people over at http://www.flashlightlens.com/ about their tolerances on the UCL glass but I never can get a response. Does anyone have any experience in their sizing accuracy?

I.e. is a 52.1mm x 1.9mm lens really what they say it is? in a large batch how much do their sizes range?

 

[420light]

I just order three Borafloats from them. All three look the same in thickness and size. I did not break out the micrometer to really check however.

 

[ti-force]

I have tried emailing the people over at http://www.flashlightlens.com/ about their tolerances on the UCL glass but I never can get a response. Does anyone have any experience in their sizing accuracy?

I.e. is a 52.1mm x 1.9mm lens really what they say it is? in a large batch how much do their sizes range?

The glass is very high quality, and it seems consistent in that quality so I would think the size consistency is also very good. I don't know that for a fact though. May I ask why you need to know (not being sarcastic, just curious)?

 

[Drywolf]

Lighthound re-sales their lenses, you might want to ask them.
Frank

 

[Pellidon]

I have bought a dozen or so over the years and have had no issue with fit.

 

[cmacclel]

If your looking for something for your MB Light I'd skip the UCL and go with a Boro. The UCL coating is very fragile one wipe with some dirt on the lens and it's junk. As for the sizes.....there right on +/- .005 industry standard.

Mac

 

[sosemot728]

If your looking for something for your MB Light I'd skip the UCL and go with a Boro. The UCL coating is very fragile one wipe with some dirt on the lens and it's junk. As for the sizes.....there right on +/- .005 industry standard.

Mac

Boro is not available in the size I need (and its the same price). All I needed to know is if the size is at least (+0.000, -0.05)

 

[cmacclel]

All I needed to know is if the size is at least (+0.000, -0.05)

You sound like me always trying to hold super tight tolerances and getting myself into trouble. Why would you need to lens to have that tight of a tolerance? Seems well.....not practical

Mac

 

[sosemot728]

May I ask why you need to know (not being sarcastic, just curious)?

For this! Bike light v2 There will eventually be a battery adapter (dual or quad 18650)

 

[sosemot728]

You sound like me always trying to hold super tight tolerances and getting myself into trouble. Why would you need to lens to have that tight of a tolerance? Seems well.....not practical

Mac

I have a 'thing' for even numbers and spending hours over small details, This current light is the smallest I have made yet...

 

[ti-force]

Why would you need to lens to have that tight of a tolerance? Seems well.....not practical

Mac

@Matthewm

That's the reason I asked why you needed to know:thumbsup:.


Looks like a neat project.

 

[wquiles]

You sound like me always trying to hold super tight tolerances and getting myself into trouble. Why would you need to lens to have that tight of a tolerance? Seems well.....not practical

+1

For this! Bike light v2 There will eventually be a battery adapter (dual or quad 18650)

(snip pics)

How many of these are you making or having made?

 

[sosemot728]

That depends on interest.... but there seems to be very little at this stage.

 

[PhotonFanatic]

I think that perhaps you didn't quite get Mac's point--nothing wrong with knowing the specs of the lens to the thou, but when you are designing the light, it would be wise to leave plenty of tolerance around the maximum dimension. Nothing will make chipping the lens, or cracking of it, easier than having a hole that won't allow for expansion of the lens, or for any possible movement caused by compression of an O-ring.

And, to further bad-mouth the UCL lens, they aren't beveled and polished, so they are wicked easy to chip; in fact, I'm willing to bet that over 75% of them already installed in lights are, indeed, already chipped, but since the chips are normally small, they don't always show until one takes the lens out at some point in time.

 

[420light]

Hmm. I only heard good things about UCL till this thread. Like I said before though, I have three Borofloats. I went with those because they are slightly thicker. Anything glass, especially when in something like a flashlight that gets used or bumped inadvertently times, is prone to damage. I wanted a clear lens, but also wanted to cut my losses by going with a sturdier lens from the beginning.

 

[sosemot728]

I think that perhaps you didn't quite get Mac's point--nothing wrong with knowing the specs of the lens to the thou, but when you are designing the light, it would be wise to leave plenty of tolerance around the maximum dimension. Nothing will make chipping the lens, or cracking of it, easier than having a hole that won't allow for expansion of the lens, or for any possible movement caused by compression of an O-ring.

And, to further bad-mouth the UCL lens, they aren't beveled and polished, so they are wicked easy to chip; in fact, I'm willing to bet that over 75% of them already installed in lights are, indeed, already chipped, but since the chips are normally small, they don't always show until one takes the lens out at some point in time.

There is sufficient space in my design. so all is good.