The Nightsword project

[get-lit]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

I need some input please. As can be seen in the beamshots, at full focus the current beam profile has a little mini flood around the center beam. I've optimized the design so that over 90% of the light output is contained within the beam and mini flood at full focus. That is why you see the cloud bounce. Most designs are much less, around 55% at best. Even the SX16 is under 55% and the Maxabeam is has very small percent of light within the actual beam, and its beam quickly dissipates in flood mode.

Alternative to the current design, I could instead make the light have absolutely zero mini flood while still having 90% of the light contained within just the beam. This would boost candlepower by a third. But as always, there's a downside. There will be a much more pronounced center hole when using the light in flood mode.

To compare, I've modeled the two designs under full beam focus and under flood.

Here's the current design. Notice mini flood around center beam at full focus, as seen in previous beamshots. (full focus next to 15 degree flood)

Here's the alternative design for full beam concentration and 1/3 more candlepower (full focus next to 15 degree flood)

As you can see, the alternative has a much more pronounced center hole under flood. 1/3 more candlepower is a heck of a lot, it's essentially a 205471mW white laser. It would surely put the light over the 50M CP mark, even over the 100M CP mark with a 300W 1mm gap P-VIP lamp, but then again I'm not going for candlepower king, this is for usability. Might consider an add-on diffuse lens when using flood to help with the center hole. Can I have some input please?

 

[Parker VH]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

I like the alternative design myself. Keep up the great work!!

 

[BVH]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

For me, the alternative is also the choice. I'm not sure I'd be using the light in flood mode. Long live the get-lit laser!

 

[get-lit]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

Thanks for the quick feedback. I was half expecting comments like wow that flood hole is atrocious. I'll proceed with this method. Happy Holidays!

 

[Walterk]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

Go for maximum throw, it is a waste of effort to go for a compromise.
It is more important to have 1 - 5 degree range then to have 1- 10 degrees.
It is so easy to make a 'diffuser' from sanded glas if you like to have flood.

 

[ma_sha1]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

Agree, who cares about the flood

 

[Mr. Tone]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

Go for the alternative super throw beam. The heck with flood. If you are using short arc focus that baby all the way!:naughty:

 

[2100]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

Go for super throw. A difusser can be added later.

 

[DM51]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

GO for the THROW!! :thumbsup:

This seems pretty unanimous, LOL.

 

[Mr. Tone]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

GO for the THROW!! :thumbsup:

This seems pretty unanimous, LOL.

This is off topic, but I love your sigline pic! I am a huge Star Trek Next Generation fan. Make it so, number one.

 

[spc smith]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

wow... I am impressed! its like a new white high powered laser!

 

[get-lit]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

Thanks everyone. The input is very helpful. Merry Christmas!

 

[DM51]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

The MB's bulb moves in and out of focus (forward and back from the reflector's focal point) using the servo motor.

How about a manually adjustable focus, maybe by turning a knob? It might be quite a lot more precise - the MB's motor moves it quite quickly, and it's not always easy to stop it exactly where you want. Being no longer servo-adjusted, it would presumably not infringe those patents.

 

[Mr. Tone]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

I agree with DM51. A manual adjustment would not only be more precise but probably easier and cheaper to build.

 

[BVH]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

I agree too! We're all so agreeable!

 

[get-lit]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

Oops, I did not see your replies and I removed that concern from the post because I think the patent had expired. It's from Dec '91 so correct me if I'm wrong. I don't understand what's novel about moving the lamp instead of the reflector. If you have to move one part in relation to another, of course you'd move the smaller part, especially if the larger part can instead reinforce the housing. It's just logical. What should have been patented is how the alignment is actually accomplished. That's the true novelty of the MaxaBeam design.

Even if the patent is expired, I wouldn't take someone else's conception and run with it. If you're going to make something, do the work to make it actually your creation from the start. I came up with my method out of necessity to meet a means, before knowing anything of the MaxaBeam design. I didn't want to know, because I wanted to come up with a way that is intuitive to me without any preconceptions from another design. There's plenty of ways to skin a cat, and after seeing the MaxaBeam patent now, I kind of prefer the method I came up with anyhow.

I don't agree that the patent should have covered, in a round about way with those claims, essentially a servo moving lamp. I think the patent officer may not have realized that's all it gets reduced to when you combine the claims and I'm sure that aspect is challengeable. The Firgelli servo I'm using can be set to run at slower speeds and I'm implementing an adjustable end stop position so it stops precisely where it needs on focus.

So anyway, what I meant to post today was about the direction of the project after having read the comments regarding uncompromised candlepower. All along I didn't want this to fall into the "what's it good for" category. How often do you hear that from someone when you show them a sick new light or laser. But this isn't for those people, and everyone's comments motivated me to not compromise anything for CP. What else could I expect from "candlepower" forums. Therefore I'm changing a few things up. Back to along the lines of my original concept, but upping the ante. The compromises are a very large hole in flood mode, reduced lamp life by up to 20%, and faster total lumen output drop over lamp life. But now the 75000 lumen lamp will get >75M candlepower.

I was going to build the light to be easily convertible to P-VIP 300W 1mm arc lamps for raw candlepower, which would now achieve 175M CP, but I figured if one wanted to compromise lumen for candlepower, they may as well go all the way. And the Osram 103 W/2 with 3000 lumen and .25x.25mm luminous area would achieve 350M CP. So I'll build this for use with the 75000 lumen lamps for cloud bounce and the 103 W/2 3000 lumen lamps for a true 7.7W 1.5-mrad laser. It's easy enough to accommodate all three types of lamps really. These calculations do not consider the boost from peak luminance mapping within the luminous areas, but Mercury based lamps don't really have much peak luminous areas anyhow.

Modeling and predicting outcome, and then verifying it has really revealed to me how to maximize the design. I'm more excited than ever. I've finalized the optic path and now I'm redesigning the housing and can't wait to begin the mold. My finances are set back after the holildays, the recent reflector purchases for testing, not to mention the prior mishap, so I have to get caught up on finances while I finalize the housing design.

EDIT: I just realized, I'm not even using a servo. It's a linear actuator!

 

[2100]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

Bro, actually yours is not a laser, even if it is 1 billion CP like some of the Francis searchlights. It's semantics of course, but laser is really coherent light and more importantly *at huge distances in real life use* yours and a laser esp a "high-end" one with good optics behaves very very differently and there are important differences in properties over huge distances. I only own a couple including DIY ones and am not an expertise in this area, but i guess the LPF folks would be able explain more.

>> So I'll build this for use with the 75000 lumen lamps for cloud bounce and the 103 W/2 3000 lumen lamps for a true 7.7W 1.5-mrad laser.

Just bringing this up, because this is the second time i read the word "laser"

 

[ma_sha1]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

The MB's motor moves it quite quickly, and it's not always easy to stop it exactly where you want.

This might have been an early short coming that was fixed later?
Out of the 2 MB I had, one does this (especially just after start up, it overshoots like crazy)

But the other one doesn't, it moves slower & does not over shoot when focusing.

 

[get-lit]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

Bro, actually yours is not a laser, even if it is 1 billion CP like some of the Francis searchlights. It's semantics of course, but laser is really coherent light and more importantly *at huge distances in real life use* yours and a laser esp a "high-end" one with good optics behaves very very differently and there are important differences in properties over huge distances. I only own a couple including DIY ones and am not an expertise in this area, but i guess the LPF folks would be able explain more.

>> So I'll build this for use with the 75000 lumen lamps for cloud bounce and the 103 W/2 3000 lumen lamps for a true 7.7W 1.5-mrad laser.

Just bringing this up, because this is the second time i read the word "laser"

The word "laser" is used to identify what it is we are comparing to when comparing output and divergence to a laser for comparative illuminance at distance. As in our past discussions, the fact that coherency is not included in the comparison to lasers is inherent because it's irrelevant for comparing illuminance. However I can see how my poor use of the phrase "true" laser could lead one to believe we're comparing more than illuminance, especially for someone that hasn't seen these comparisons before.

The comparison to lasers has been helpful for us to really grasp the intensity of these lights at distance. For instance, my very first beamshot from a while back was the weakest of them all, yet it's illuminance beyond 1000' easily exceeded my 1W laser from a well known brand. That's fun stuff! Definitely worth talking about here. Compare the light to the laser at 10 feet and the laser has way more illuminance because of the large aperture of the light, but at about 1000 feet and beyond, the larger aperture of that light was offset with less divergence than the 1W laser for more collimated light with higher illuminance. These latest beamshots blow that first test away, and the new direction I'm taking this project will really make things fun. I haven't been more excited about this project over all these years than I am now.

 

[Mr. Tone]

Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs

get-lit, I think I can speak for all the rest of us and say we are excited too! With your last to posts I am freaking out. If you pull this all off in your portable design you are going down in CPF history! Keep up the good work, and thanks for keeping us informed on your awesome short-arc projects.

One quick question, though. With the intensity of these and the UV and all, will they be safe to use without eye protection of some sort? Welding glasses, maybe?