Now I just need to know who makes them
Tecsee.
Edit: V1s were made by Tecsee. These clearly appear to be different molds, but I want a hardline answer as to what is different other than just different mold stamps and am going to be under the assumption they are of the same factory until we can be told/prove otherwise
1. What about new molds requires slow speed wire cutting? This does not conform with my understanding of how injection molded plastic parts, since those were the only things that you said improved, are made.
2. How are these molds specifically different than those from V1?
3. The biggest issues with KK Lightwave V1 switches were not necessarily in the housings themselves, but rather the metallic crunching sounds that were either springs crunching or leaf issues of some sort. Do you propose the V2s fix this issue since that is not stated there?
4. Will any sort of reviewers, content creators, or anybody with some sort of established opinion platform that isn't a vendor be receiving these to review prior to them going on sale?
Edit II: I've been told I "type mad." I'm genuinely curious and appreciate if you could let us know. I'm not out to try and get anyone, I just find Lightwave V1s strange switches and am hoping we can know more about V2s.
(1) The V2 mold uses a lot of slow-moving wire processing, not plastic parts.
(2) The V2 mold has higher precision
(3) The V1 is the problem of plastic parts
(4)Sure, we have sent out some samples for review. GB will start after receive their feedback. Thanks.
Re 1: Are these not being produced by plastic injection molding? This would be relatively revolutionary as far as I am aware in the way of mechanical switch production. If MX style switches were being produced via a non-injection molded process at comparable costs, I would imagine people would be extremely interested in its potential to be cost effective with respect to waste. As well, if that is the case, I'd be even further surprised that larger production houses then the one you are assumedly using had not figured out yet. This would insinuate an otherwise unrecognizable mold lettering scheme coming from a small, if not completely unknown production house, would have tuned a completely new process to such standards as to be comparable with big name producers.
Re 2: Higher precision with regards to what? Have the top housing holes been narrowed? Have the stems been increased in width to accommodate wobble? Like even just as much as saying broad yet still specific changes would be insightful.
Re 3: I have no understanding how a metallic sound is the fault of the plastic housings.
Re 4: Dope, I look forward to those responses.
Thank you for your responses!
Sorry, I didn't explain the questions clearly
Re: 1 V2 is a mold improvement. The plastic parts are still produced by injection molding, just the custom molds apply slow-speed wire cutting technology
Re:2 the V2 molds are more precise, and the positioning between each component is more accurate and compact, which improves the smoothness of the stems and the wobble between the upper and lower housings. Not just including you mentioned
Re:3 the V1 is the problem of plastic parts, because the spring is lengthened, in order to ensure the feel, there will be a sound when pressed
I mean, while I again appreciate the responses, you seemingly just said the same thing you did the first time but with more words.
Re 1: I still don't understand what this wire technology you clam is referring to. It doesn't appear to add any sort of value to your product nor degrade the production process because otherwise we'd see the results of either of these in your price. The only thing that I can think of is this simply being marketing fluff.
Re 2: You've just defined what we all here understood as more precise. We want to know which dimensions/gaps are more precise
Re 3: Like the wire technology thing, this still makes absolutely no sense to me. On top of that, there are other long spring switches in existence which don't have any sort of sound or metallic crunch, so this clearly isn't a 'necessary' feature of their usage.
Since those questions didn't really go anywhere, I guess I could ask an easier question:
"Linear Switch | 60 grams of Gold Plated Spring | PCB mounted
4.0MM TRAVEL | 2.00±0.5MM ACTUATION | 35GF PEAK FORCE
| 45±10GF ACTUATION | 65GF BOTTOM OUT"
How can you have a 60g spring with a 65g bottom out force, a 45g actuation, and a 35g peak force? Not all of those numbers can be true unless you've defined actuation, bottom out, or peak force in some strange way.
If the 60g spring refers to bottom out, then the bottom out force of 65g is wrong and the 35g peak force is wrong.
If the 60g spring refers to actuation, then the 45g actuation and the 35g peak force is wrong.
If the 65g bottom out is correct, then the 60g spring could be wrong, and the 35g peak force is wrong.
If the 45g actuation force is correct, then the 35g peak force is wrong, and the 60 spring could be wrong.
If the 35g peak force is correct, then none of the other values are correct.
If the 60g spring refers to the actual physical weight of the spring (which would be the strangest answer) then the actuation, peak force, and bottoming out still have the same issue of not being all simultaneously possible either.
Could you please explain which of these numbers is actually correct since it doesn't appear they all can be?
