I am still eagerly waiting to see some neutral white versions of these available on Noctigon boards. Mountain Electronics has some 5000K triples but I just need a single and 5000K is a little too cool for my liking.
Cree XP-L High Intensity LED
- Thread starter mds82
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
Paul Baldwin
Enlightened
Hi,
I've got a project in mind for one of these. Does anyone know of a lense available that gives a tighter beam output than these? http://www.carclo-optics.com/optic-...xp-l high intensity&beamangle=1 to 10 degrees
I can't find any of the 50mm lenses Cree mentions in their blurb with the 4 degree output.
Ta
Paul.
I've got a project in mind for one of these. Does anyone know of a lense available that gives a tighter beam output than these? http://www.carclo-optics.com/optic-...xp-l high intensity&beamangle=1 to 10 degrees
I can't find any of the 50mm lenses Cree mentions in their blurb with the 4 degree output.
Ta
Paul.
Paul Baldwin
Enlightened
Bit pissed at mo but maybe this is useful? http://www.cutter.com.au/proddetail.php?prod=cut2537
Mountain Electronics had them on Noctigon Triple Boards. Sold out quickly, but I am sure they will be restocked. Singles are rumored to be coming too.
I saw the triples but I need singles. Mountain Electronics is my preferred source for LED components. I will probably wait until they have some in stock. I have an Eagletac T25C2 with a XP-L HI on the way to tide me over.
my guess is no. I don't think Cree will go back to mod an "older" emitter.
recDNA
Flashaholic
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2009
- Messages
- 8,761
When you dedome an xpl you lose output and gain throw. Will these also be less efficient than ordinary xpl?
carl
Flashlight Enthusiast
I need some clarification and help here:
From Cree's site: "The XP-L High Intensity LED allows us to boost the efficacy and intensity of our XP-G2 LED based designs without changing optics or drivers."
Are they saying that for the same power/Watts input, both efficiency ("efficacy") and throw ("intensity") will be greater than XP-G2?
Post #35 above suggests 10-15% higher output for the XPL-HI but Cree is saying the throw would be greater too - I guess due to the slightly greater output?
Thank you for your help!
From Cree's site: "The XP-L High Intensity LED allows us to boost the efficacy and intensity of our XP-G2 LED based designs without changing optics or drivers."
Are they saying that for the same power/Watts input, both efficiency ("efficacy") and throw ("intensity") will be greater than XP-G2?
Post #35 above suggests 10-15% higher output for the XPL-HI but Cree is saying the throw would be greater too - I guess due to the slightly greater output?
Thank you for your help!
Last edited:
carl
Flashlight Enthusiast
double post
carl
Flashlight Enthusiast
The smaller die XP-G2 no-dome would mean higher intensity ('greater throw') than XPL no-dome. If they don't make a no-dome version of the XP-G2, where will the 'greater throw' version of a Cree come from?
degarb
Flashlight Enthusiast
This may be the emitter that will cause me to reopen up my wallet to build something new and different. Just been waiting for some new significant thresholds to be crossed in a 4000 to 5000 tint. But, like most prefer the high bins on a board.
RoGuE_StreaK
Enlightened
A musing that seems relevant here; can you use a small aspheric close to the emitter in these cases rather than a large one further away? I'm not overly knowledgeable about the ins and outs of aspherics, but is the diameter and distance a factor of trying to focus all areas of a square emitting surface rather than a point source? If so, as the apparent emitter surface is smaller here, does that mean you can use closer and smaller?
ie., Has anything been designed yet that can essentially be mounted very closely to the emitter to drastically reduce the required lens size?
ie., Has anything been designed yet that can essentially be mounted very closely to the emitter to drastically reduce the required lens size?
I wish Cree or some other manufacturer would continue to innovate and make LEDs not only brighter, more efficient, but also smaller, but I think they would just focus on brighter and dome less from now on.
degarb
Flashlight Enthusiast
I really hate to step in, but I think it was cited xlp hi is something like 15 percent greater lumen ouput at same current level of 1 to 2 watts (v3 v s4, perhaps? I haven't studied the numbers fully, clouded by xpg rated at my preferred 350 to 700 ma, while xpl is 1500 or 1000ma. I suppose there is a cree calculator, somewhere out there. ) . So, why compare at same lumen when in real world you might get higher lux due to more overall output in a milliamp that most people would prefer due to battery limits and a reasonable runtime? Apples to apples, is ma to ma, more than lumen to lumen.
I would think same beam shape would certainly mean same lux if the lumens be equal, since lux is the net concentration of those lumens over any area. You can download an andriod trig calculator from eve-star to measure your hot spot and corona. So, it should be very possible to nail down beam angle of both in a standard p60. Also, measure lux of each at same drive level… . However, for lumen comparison- well, for last 3 years (as alternative to bulky sphere and ceiling bounce)- I also built an index card sized diffuser, made of three plastic frosted diffusers (I bought a broken overhead diffuser lens for $2 from home depot, not being wholly confident in the milk jug diffuser material) sandwiching in two white sheets of paper (glued together) , I store it in my lux meter case. Cheap, easy to store, easy to make, easy to use. Measure relative diffused lux at 2 feet(with nothing around, pressing diffuser to lens) and it does remarkable to compare over all output of lights with similar beamshapes. The diffused lux ratio gives you a multiplier. I don't bother comparing lights with radically differing beamshapes, or color, despite being a near perfect diffuser and nearly perfectly white. Key word is near.
I would think same beam shape would certainly mean same lux if the lumens be equal, since lux is the net concentration of those lumens over any area. You can download an andriod trig calculator from eve-star to measure your hot spot and corona. So, it should be very possible to nail down beam angle of both in a standard p60. Also, measure lux of each at same drive level… . However, for lumen comparison- well, for last 3 years (as alternative to bulky sphere and ceiling bounce)- I also built an index card sized diffuser, made of three plastic frosted diffusers (I bought a broken overhead diffuser lens for $2 from home depot, not being wholly confident in the milk jug diffuser material) sandwiching in two white sheets of paper (glued together) , I store it in my lux meter case. Cheap, easy to store, easy to make, easy to use. Measure relative diffused lux at 2 feet(with nothing around, pressing diffuser to lens) and it does remarkable to compare over all output of lights with similar beamshapes. The diffused lux ratio gives you a multiplier. I don't bother comparing lights with radically differing beamshapes, or color, despite being a near perfect diffuser and nearly perfectly white. Key word is near.
Last edited:
degarb
Flashlight Enthusiast
Last edited:
degarb, thanks for the response. I understand that the XPL, output wise, is more efficient than the XPG2, which means more lumens/watt, which can also mean (and it does in this case) more lumens/mA. What I don't know is, in a P60 drop-in, whether it takes more lumens, or more mA if you like, from the XPL HI to throw the same distance as a XPG2, assuming each uses a SMO reflector designed for the respective emitter. I infer that this is not the case, because some say the beam shape of the XPL HI is nearly identical to that of the XPG2. But according to others, the XPG2 is still the more efficient thrower than the XPL HI. Two contradicting statements, hence my confusion and question.
