# Any lights using XB-D?



## moozooh (Sep 28, 2012)

It's basically a smaller and somewhat brighter version of XP-E2, might just be the best LED for compact throwers. Yet I don't remember a single light advertised as based on this emitter. Why might that be? Am I missing something important here?


----------



## Toaster79 (Sep 28, 2012)

Might be because of the remote phosphor technology and faceted die. Just like XT-E.


----------



## moozooh (Sep 28, 2012)

Would you elaborate? I see it listed on Cree's site among "consumer portable" applications, such as, quoting, "flashlights, head lamps and lanterns".


----------



## Toaster79 (Sep 28, 2012)

People have experienced color shifting using TIR lenses and reflectors with XT-E, so the story about XB-D might be prety much the same.


----------



## A10K (Sep 29, 2012)

I briefly used an XB-D and XT-E in some bike lights. While marketed as direct drop-in replacements for the XP-E and XP-G respectively, the remote phosphor technology have them very pronounced color separation and fairly underwhelming throw. The XP-E2 has about the same output and a much cleaner die, so my guess is that it will be a much better candidate for small throwers.


----------



## bose301s (Sep 30, 2012)

XB-D is not using remote phosphor, remote phosphor would mean using a blue LED the like the XT-E Royal Blue and the applying phosphor to the lens of the device.


----------



## Toaster79 (Oct 1, 2012)

Am I missing something here?


----------



## Optical Inferno (Oct 1, 2012)

bose301s said:


> XB-D is not using remote phosphor, remote phosphor would mean using a blue LED the like the XT-E Royal Blue and the applying phosphor to the lens of the device.



It is considered a remote phosphor device as the phosphor is not applied directly to the LED die but to the dome of the LED. This in turn acts the same way as you have described but at the component level. This is what is leading to the colour separation that the others have observed.


----------



## Mike S (Oct 1, 2012)

It looks as though the phosphor is applied directly to the die... or are you saying that the phosphor is suspended in the silicone dome, and doesn't directly touch the die? 

Edit: To clarify, I mean is it suspended by a fraction of a millimeter above the die?


----------



## bose301s (Oct 1, 2012)

Optical Inferno said:


> It is considered a remote phosphor device as the phosphor is not applied directly to the LED die but to the dome of the LED. This in turn acts the same way as you have described but at the component level. This is what is leading to the colour separation that the others have observed.


The phosphor IS on the die.


----------



## Toaster79 (Oct 1, 2012)

The phosphor is on the die and all over the base of the LED. It's a layer between the LED base and the silicone dome which covers the entire base.


----------



## Optical Inferno (Oct 2, 2012)

Toaster79 said:


> The phosphor is on the die and all over the base of the LED. It's a layer between the LED base and the silicone dome which covers the entire base.



What he said... therefore it acts as a remote phosphor system and thus gets the designation. The XT-E white also does the same thing I believe.


----------



## bose301s (Oct 2, 2012)

Optical Inferno said:


> What he said... therefore it acts as a remote phosphor system and thus gets the designation. The XT-E white also does the same thing I believe.



So then every white LED would be remote phosphor. It's just a different way of applying it but it isn't remote phosphor.


----------



## Optical Inferno (Oct 3, 2012)

bose301s said:


> So then every white LED would be remote phosphor. It's just a different way of applying it but it isn't remote phosphor.



If you want to get technical, then your right however... in the case of the XB-D and XT-E White the phosphor is not just limited to the die like other LEDs. This distinction (as can be seen in the image a few posts above) is what causes it to act like a remote phosphor device.

I'm not saying that people should market their device that uses such LEDs as a remote phosphor light, but it will show the colour separation characteristics that are inherent with remote phosphor lights with an optic. This is the likely reason that most people tend to not use them for flashlights and more likely would use them for "opticless" downlights or floodlights.


----------



## Gunner12 (Oct 3, 2012)

Cree's datasheet does not have the word "remote" on it. Just did a quick search and didn't find it. It might be on a picture, but I don't think so.


----------



## Optical Inferno (Oct 3, 2012)

Gunner12 said:


> Cree's datasheet does not have the word "remote" on it. Just did a quick search and didn't find it. It might be on a picture, but I don't think so.



You're absolutely right. They don't mention the term remote phosphor. However, what I and a couple others are suggesting is that it acts like a remote phosphor due to the phosphor not being strictly confined to just the led die.


----------



## Gunner12 (Oct 3, 2012)

That does look like the case from the pictures, unless Cree somehow made dome shaped dies. If it is suspended, the main improvement I can think of is a decrease in phosphor temperature and easier to make. First should be good for increasing phosphor's life a bit (guessing from personal and other experience with overheating LEDs), and second would be good for price.

The amount of light hitting the phosphorus should still be similar to other LEDs due to the proximity to the die, unlike on a remote phosphorous light, where the light density at the phosphor is a good bit lower then with a normal white LED (I've only seen the Philips L-prize bulb).

I think at this close range, the LED is probably most similar to a traditional LED then a remote phosphor device (from the limited experience that I have at least).


----------



## Optical Inferno (Oct 3, 2012)

Gunner12 said:


> I think at this close range, the LED is probably most similar to a traditional LED then a remote phosphor device (from the limited experience that I have at least).



Couldn't agree with you more. I was more referring to the fact that this acts at the emitter level like a remote phosphor device. Yeah... definitely not the same as a remote phosphor light.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Oct 3, 2012)

I think the term you folks are looking for is "conformal coating." Bose is correct in that the raised structure is structurally part of the die and not of the dome, i.e. when they make the die, or if you were to buy a bare die, it would have that clear structure bonded to it. 

I think the phosphor around the edges of the die maybe will give a glow that would mess with the beam quality of tight optics.


----------



## bose301s (Oct 4, 2012)

Look at the Chips portion of our website, you can find the DA1000, DA700 and DA3547 chips. What goes into the XB-D and XT-E are DA chips, the patterned top part is part of the die itself, this die is then coated with phosphor, just like a flat die in the XM-L, XP-G etc. it just looks different because of the conformal coating over the PCB and the non-flat chip.

If you find an old XR-E you will find that the entire surface of what you can be seen below the some is covered with phosphor, that's the same principle as what's happening here and I know no one would ever argue an XR-E is a remote phosphor device. Again, it would be the same as if the covered the entire PCB area under the silicone dome of the XM-L with phosphor instead of just the chip, just a larger applied area but again, not remote phosphor, just like the XB-D and XT-E are not remote phosphor.


----------



## RoGuE_StreaK (Oct 4, 2012)

I think the issue that's being raised is that the phosphor that is not directly on top of the die, ie. that on the PCB, is being partly excited and giving off some yellow light; these varying degrees of yellow are being captured by reflectors/TIRs etc and ends up out the front, giving a result that isn't pleasing for CPFers.

Seems from doing a picture search that only _some_ of the XR-E's had phosphor everywhere, not just on the die?


----------



## Gunner12 (Oct 4, 2012)

The older XR-Es had phosphor everywhere, the newer ones only have the phosphor on the die.

I didn't know that the XB-Ds use those dies in them (thought they used the EZ dies), that explains the faucets and how some of the phosphor seems raised.

As for the original question, I don't think any commercial flashlights use this LED.


----------



## bose301s (Oct 4, 2012)

Gunner12 said:


> The older XR-Es had phosphor everywhere, the newer ones only have the phosphor on the die.
> 
> I didn't know that the XB-Ds use those dies in them (thought they used the EZ dies), that explains the faucets and how some of the phosphor seems raised.
> 
> As for the original question, I don't think any commercial flashlights use this LED.



Yup, XB-D and XT-E (both white and royal blue) use the DA chips in them whereas XR-E, XP-E, XP-E2, XP-G, XP-G2, XM-L etc. use EZ chips.


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Oct 13, 2012)

The Defiant 100 lumen Cree l.e.d. headlight at Home Depot has an XB-D. Comes in a two pack for $10. Not a bad price for something with Cree XP-G efficiency. The color separation is noticeable though.


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Oct 13, 2012)

I wanted to add that Home Depot also had a 2 pack of Defiant 100 lumen 3AAA XB-D flashlights for $10. Don't look for these lights in the flashlight aisle. They are up at the front of the store with the seasonal stuff for Christmas and Black Friday. They also had some nice Coast knives in 1 and 2 packs for $10, a $10 Coast light, and a Minimaglite Pro for around $22 or $23. This was at the San Marcos Home Depot. Some of the other stores hadn't unpacked these items yet. Poway stores had boxes of these items with instructions to only open them after October 15 so you might see more selection in the coming days.

The XB-D headlights are multilevel. The settings are 1 l.e.d., 3 l.e.d.s, XB-D l.e.d., and XB-D l.e.d. +3 l.e.d.s. Runtime on high is stated as 7 hours. For a comparision, the 100 lumen Rayovac Indestructible headlight is rated for 3 hours on high. The regular l.e.d.s are narrow beam and pretty useless by themselves as far as I'm concerned. However, they do make the light brighter on high. Overall, they are decent cheapo headlights for $5 each and someone that has never purchased a good l.e.d. flashlight before would be very impressed by the overall output.


----------



## Broodmaster (Nov 12, 2012)

Hooked on Fenix said:


> I wanted to add that Home Depot also had a 2 pack of Defiant 100 lumen 3AAA XB-D flashlights for $10. Don't look for these lights in the flashlight aisle. They are up at the front of the store with the seasonal stuff for Christmas and Black Friday. They also had some nice Coast knives in 1 and 2 packs for $10, a $10 Coast light, and a Minimaglite Pro for around $22 or $23. This was at the San Marcos Home Depot. Some of the other stores hadn't unpacked these items yet. Poway stores had boxes of these items with instructions to only open them after October 15 so you might see more selection in the coming days.
> 
> The XB-D headlights are multilevel. The settings are 1 l.e.d., 3 l.e.d.s, XB-D l.e.d., and XB-D l.e.d. +3 l.e.d.s. Runtime on high is stated as 7 hours. For a comparision, the 100 lumen Rayovac Indestructible headlight is rated for 3 hours on high. The regular l.e.d.s are narrow beam and pretty useless by themselves as far as I'm concerned. However, they do make the light brighter on high. Overall, they are decent cheapo headlights for $5 each and someone that has never purchased a good l.e.d. flashlight before would be very impressed by the overall output.



I bought the Defiant headlights and the 2 pack of handhelds. The headlights are not that good... yellow tint rings with white spill and white spot. I decided to use one for parts. The XB-D emitter/star to modify a http://www.tractorsupply.com/jobsmart-reg-5-watt-stubby-flashlight-1023094 , and the adjusting mount for a http://www.riverrockledlights.com/shop/headlamps/6v_nightfire_led_headlamp_r-hc2l.php that had cracked. The low power LEDs are still usefull for something... That JobSmart Stubby really lights up with an Li 18500 but not so with fresh 3AAs (??). It is a much better thrower with the XB-D as well as the spill is improved as can be expected with a small dye diode.

Now, the Defiant handheld http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs...&productId=203278149&R=203278149#.UKCaAmdSQYw almost outperforms my Ultrafire R2 drop-in, supposedly a 250 lumen producer. The Defiant spot is brighter but the spill is a little less intense compared to the drop-in. The pattern is nice with just a little yellow shrouding the spot. The only drawbacks for the Defiant are the hollow pill under the star, the plastic lens and faceted reflector and the press-fit switch housing. I measured right at 1 amp from both the 3xAAA and a protected Li 18500. If I'm reading Cree's specs right, that should put the output at around 300 lumens! BTW, there is no cc or cv circuitry as the flashlight is directly powered from the battery. I have placed some thermal paste at each 'point' of the star where it sits on the pill and even when touching the star directly after running the light for a while, it only feels slightly warm. The pill screws into the body of the flashlight. For now, I'm going to say this is the brightest 'cheap' light I have purchased.


----------

