# The Nightsword project



## get-lit

ma_sha1, I haven't been on in a while but I see you've made a lot of progress over the year. My project has stalled due to funds, but it's not dead. Working on a cost effective injection molding process for the housing. I changed back to a molding design instead of fabricated metal due to electrical safety. I would love to go with carbon fiber layup, but it's about as conductive as metal, so it's not any safer, so I decided on Kevlar. It's not conductive and it's stronger and lighter than fiberglass, and it's not itchy. The prototype is under 10 lbs total (without battery) and consumes 1025 watts total (120v AC or 120v DC) with power supply losses.

Here's a shot of the 75,000 lumen beam. ..







No actual beam shot of the clouds, I didn't take the pic. It's a very uniform circle on the clouds. Looking up at the beam is dizzying. I finally reached my goal of a portable light with the output of the SX-16 searchlight, but with half the power consumption (if you don't mind waiting a minute for start up).

This is with a shallow 9.5" reflector. The lit up trees is all from the stray light which will be better utilized in the beam with the next prototype with a deeper 10.5" reflector with a bit shorter FL. Still will be under 10 lbs, that's a major goal for me. Strange how the stray light on the trees is white but the beam is so blue, but it's all the same light. The clouds reflect white like the trees. I don't understand the blue beam. I run it for about an hour at a time for temp tests, and during that time cars come sneaking up the road with their headlights off. Makes me chuckle.

By the eye, it appears to have same exact throw (and beam color) as the Arctic Spyder 1W laser, which in itself is a pretty insane laser, but with them both on, the 1W laser is dwarfed.

Always use a UV blocking lens! ALWAYS!!! I ran it without for about five minutes thinking such a short time would be ok, and I was wrong. Without ever looking in the direction of the light, the reflected light gave me Arc Eye and I had to go to the optometrist the next day because all I saw was blur. It was quite scary. Fortunately it healed after two weeks with no after effects, but I was lucky. It was my lesson to never take even the slightest chances along the way. There are no short cuts.


----------



## ma_sha1

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Get-lit, good to see you back in action! Wow, over 1000W, that's insane, I wonder if your power solution
will prevent it from being a Portable light? 

I got my 9.5" short arc reflector in, but due to a job change, I had to move to MD, the project is on hold,
all my stuff are left in Maine. I use a 13 lb 400W portable AC pack, I installed a lightweight 20AH Lifepo4 electric car battery &
a 300V DC power inverter to power my 260W P-VIP ballst. I am almost at final stage for my 260W/1mm arc P-VIP install, but had to wait for a few month now.

As for the blue beam, my light does the same, I think it's due to Rayleigh scattering, the beam is scattering light, not reflection,
blue spectrum scatters more than other wavelength, thus beam of white light is blue but reflected light remain white. The same principle as why the sky is blue when sunlight is white. 

I wear a UV blocking face mask, yes, UV protection for the eyes is critically important, hope you don't get long term damage!


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Ahh! Rayleigh scattering. Good thinking.

Bummer, no more pics from Maine.

The power supply is contained within the light housing. I can keep the housing with power supply and ignitor under 10 lbs while accepting 90v+ AC/DC. I'd use a 110v battery pack so no inverter is needed. I figure batteries will keep getting more dense. Right now I could use Turnigy Nano-Tech batteries, a 10 lb pack could run for 37 minutes.


----------



## Walterk

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Fantastic beam Get-lit !


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

It's not really evident in the pic, but the beam does have more spread to it than the Maxa Blaster and the Moon Blaster. The beam spread is probably more like the MegaBlaster. I'm working with 75K lumen in a 3.5mm gap, however I'm having a super short arc developed, at the expense of lamp life and a minor hit in lumen output. I expect to be able to get 65K+ lumen in a beam as tight as the Maxa Beam. But this is all moving along very slowly because the costs are tremendous and this economy sure ain't helpin.


----------



## Walterk

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Lurking CPF for some time it is nice to see you still hunt the perfect big light.


----------



## IlluminatedOne

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Great beam shot Get-Lit, glad to see your project is still being worked on, it would be incredible to have a handheld light with that much power and throw. 

Keep up the great work.


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

ma_sha1, that Coleman in your first photo sure brings back some memories. What an incredible light for it's time. I remember picking mine up at Service Merchandise with shoulder strapped battery pack. It went everywhere with me. The long night hiking treks is what made me realize how much I really like the battery separate from the light. Lugging it all in the hand would have been a nightmare.

Here's the second prototype I'm currently making a mold for. The first was very crude. I've created well over 100 CAD variants. I'm making sure it can tail stand. That's a biggie for us here on CPF, especially for this amount of light. It also has to balance perfectly well. No tipping forward like the Thor.

Dimensions are 11.25" Diameter by 15.25" Long. Reflector is 10.5" Diameter in a deep configuration for 75.7% light gather. A brand new type of coating over the Rhodium surface will increase reflectance from 70% to over 90% while actually increasing Rhodium durability by quite a bit. I want to go with Gorilla Glass or Dragontail for the lens, but making arrangements with the manufacturers is difficult. In any case, lens transmission should be around 90%, so total OTF should be 46,000 Lumen from the 75,000 Lumen lamp. This will easily out shine the SX-16. The reflector housing uses internal reinforcement within a double wall construction for cooling purposes as well as strength. Cooling intake and exhaust vents are not shown.

Universal orientation with use in rain and water spray from any direction in a forced-air ventilated design is a requirement, and it's taken me years to get it right. There's a reason I'm not showing the vents 

Features will include motor focus, strobe mode, and dim mode. Strobe mode is sick BTW.

This is getting closer, but still a ways off.

I'm interested in some of your impressions of the overall design. The electronics housing is fairly narrow. I wanted it to be so that it's easy to carry without rubbing on the hip, but it may tip more easily while shelved. Kind of a trade off. Due to limited orientation options for the electronics, it's either fairly narrow or a bit too wide. But again, after over 100 versions modeled, and countless inter-related design considerations thought through and through to the point of near insanity, this looks to be about it... And someone tell my ex, it's NOT called OCD, it's called wanting it done right.


----------



## DM51

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

My jaw doesn't often drop, but that amazing beamshot and your Nightsword design are just astounding! oo:


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

My jaw doesn't often drop, but a comment like that from the Super Mod is just astounding


----------



## ma_sha1

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*



get-lit said:


> I'm interested in some of your impressions of the overall design.


 
Well, all I can say is Wow! What a beauty! Well done, the design is Awesome! Almost maxa beamish but with bigger reflector & well balanced. The only thing you may consider is perhaps add a folding or retractable "feet" to the rear, so that that light can rest on it & project beam forward, ideally, allows the light to adjust angles by adjust the rear "feet" to adjust the height of the rear end when the light is sitting on the ground.

I could be wrong, but the front switch location looks a bit too forward, perhaps, the switch location can move back a bit, ideally, at a location within natural thumb reach when your hand is holding the light at its center of gravity. 


Speaking about SX-16, have you seen their on the ground spotlight?


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

That top button is the focus control. It's positioned for the thumb position with everything weight balanced at the center of the dip in the handle which would be at the center of the hand. This is based on weight estimates, so the positioning of the handle may change after the prototype is built. The rear of this thing is fairly light, and the reflector and lens have a bit of heft.

I've seen the CHIS. 25" reflector, over 160 lbs. The specs on their site says 0.8-degree beam. Ouch. Quite an investment at $90,000.

The Thor has an integrated adjustable mount. That's something I'd like to include after the first prototype.


----------



## Wildlands

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Wow, another Mainer with a love of light! I am in South Portland, so I want you to give me a call next time you are shining them up in the sky.

Amazing beam shots, and I am totally jealous. My Stanley HID cannot compare.


----------



## Wildlands

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Gah, how did I get so many duplicates?


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

ma_sha1, I wonder if your P-VIP ballast is power factor corrected and can possibly accept a 110v DC input. Then you could go direct from battery. Back when I was considering P-VIP, the ballasts we AC input only. DC input is a requiement for my project. Lugging a high power inverter is not practical. Ultimately, my light must work in all weather, and inverters would be an issue there.

I'm still interested in making a 250W P-VIP version of my light because it's so practical to power if you can obtain ballast with direct DC input, and 1mm arc gap could use a smaller and lighter reflector for something more portable than my light. P-VIP ballasts are tiny and don't need a bulky external ignitor like my light, and cost very little.

So I'm really considering making two versions, the more practical and affordable P-VIP and the all out megalight with 5 times the output and unfortunately 5 times the production cost.

Back when I was first considering P-VIP lamps, I sourced a company that said they could make a ballast with 110v DC input for up to 250W AC output for P-VIP lamps. I'm going to see if I can come up with something.


----------



## ma_sha1

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

My 120V P-VIP ballasts for the Mega Blaster & Moon blaster are power factor corrected, runs on 110V, I took them out of Compaq DLP projectors.

My 260V P-VIP ballast for my up coming home-made tank light is 300V DC input only, this is a gift from a Friend who works at Osram, who upgraded the firm ware to increase 250W ballast to 260W. It drives a 1mm Arc 250W P-VIP lamp. I built a 12v-300V DC inverter to run it from 12V.

All 3 lights runs out of this 20AH, 400W portable power pack below, I upgraded the 13lb Lead Acid battery into a light weight 7lb, 20AH Lifepo4 battery. It has two 110V Ac out, one 12C DC out & one 300V DC out, so all three of my super lights are powered by this single ultimate power pack!
*
Front: Dual 100V AC, I can Run Mega & Moon Blaster simutaniously*





*Back, with Lifepo4 charging port & Digital Volt meter.*





*Side: My 300V DC Add-on, unfortunately, no room to put it inside.*


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

You built a 12v-300V DC inverter? Very nice. Strange that the 260W ballast doesn't accept 120v AC.

I wouldn't mind a 12v inverter for when hooking up to car or boat power, but for when out on foot, I prefer to go without. I remember many years ago, there weren't so many options. The past few years sure have been a nice change.


----------



## 2100

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Ma_sha, your inverter seems like to be the "modified sine wave", ala more of square wave type right? I was just going through them and i see that your model fits quite a lot of them the OEM ones. The pure sine wave are quite expensive and are of a different design.

No problem on powering the ballasts? I guess only power tools may have issues, also regfrigerators .


----------



## ma_sha1

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

The Inverter is the cheap ebay type, not pure sine wave.

It wasn't easy to have it figured out for me, as I am not IC savvy. Here is a link to the process how I figured it out with the help of CPF:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...pping-300V-DC-out-from-12-220V-power-Inverter

Intially, after I got the 300V DC, I had problem powing up the lamp (auto shut off after 30 sec.) when I used the 12V cigaratte socket for input,
then I opened it up & direct wired the inverter to battery with short wire, then everything worked beautifully.





*Disclamer:*
I am not suggesting or encoraging anyone to do this, one can get electricuted trying to mod inverters or tapping High Voltage DCs.
I wrtote the link to get help from CPF, did it for my self at my own risk! Do not copy what I did, this is high risk & may result serious injories or death, you have been warned.


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

For something super simple to power the 1000W Nightwsord for almost 4 hours, I considered this. It's still a bit heavy at 29 lbs, but not a bad solution for semi-portability with super long runtime. It's also the quietest generator available...






Here's a video comparing it to a Harbor Freight generator. When the Harbor Freight is shut off, you can hardly hear the Honda.


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Took some more beam shots last night. Again the cars came sneaking up. Maybe I'll leave it on for Halloween.

Beam up close...






From a bit further...





From down the road...





It puts a bright pin spot on the clouds surrounded by a bit of a flood.


----------



## Walterk

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Awesome !


----------



## ma_sha1

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Wow, get-lit, wow! 

When are you going to measure the >100 meter lux?
Enough to take down Ra's Maxa Blaster yet?


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Thanks ma_sha1. 

Sorry, I have a list of things to be completed before I can take it out somewhere for lux measurements. I can tell you now, it's definitely not going to take down the Maxa Blaster in shear candlepower. I'd be happy to achieve just over 40 million CP, but with 75,000 source lumen, it will throw a ton of light a fun distance. My goal is to take down the Nightsun SX-16 Searchlight. The Maxablaster and Nightsun are two very different beasts with two very different purposes. I expect this light to slightly exceed the Nightsun in total lumen output and candlepower (by roughly 15% on both counts), while being portable, weatherproof and under 10 lbs. This could have been done a long time ago if I weren't planning to make this for production on such a limited budget. Gotta make sure I get it right before the major production costs come into play. Just dumped another $1200 on a couple more prototype reflectors with a new coating method to greatly improve reflectance and durability over standard Bright Rhodium. All of the components are highly integrated with each other in the design. It doesn't make it easy to develop but it's the only way to make it most portable and durable. For instance, if I have to change something as simple as the size of an air passage, it affects everything else in the design. Down the road, I can have some super short arc versions of the lamps produced for you CP nuts, but it will add to cost and reduce the lamp life.


----------



## BVH

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*



get-lit said:


> This could have been done a long time ago if I weren't planning to make this for production on such a limited budget. Gotta make sure I get it right before the major production costs come into play.



Get Lit, it's been a while so I don't exactly remember. Are you designing this for your own production of lights for sale or were you designing and making this such that CPF'rs could make one of their own from available plans and materials?


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

The original idea was to offer a kit form at cost. As this has evolved, the assembly has become complicated, and with lethal voltages involved (50kv) it's become evident to me it would not be remotely safe for this to be assembled by just anyone. If someone doesn't get it right, or doesn't take certain precautions along the way, it could result in premature lamp failures, electronics failures, or just plain crappy performance, or worse it could easily make you blind or abruptly end your life. Even if there's the standard waiver etc, having an incident would absolutely destroy my passion for this project. So I figured I'd have to assemble them, but I also figured more people would begin to want them, so I had to just offer it to those involved in the early discussions, because I'd probably not have the time to build them for more people. If more people ended up wanting one down the road, I'd have to charge for my time and likewise become a supporter. However I don't see this really going that way because really how many people out there are crazy enough to spend four figures on a "flashlight" in this day and age. Just a few die hards here like myself.


----------



## ez78

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Woow, so you really built it, congratulations get-lit! That's propably the most intense cloud bounce I have seen here.oo:


----------



## 2100

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*



get-lit said:


> The original idea was to offer a kit form at cost. As this has evolved, the assembly has become complicated, and with lethal voltages involved (50kv) it's become evident to me it would not be remotely safe for this to be assembled by just anyone. If someone doesn't get it right, or doesn't take certain precautions along the way, it could result in premature lamp failures, electronics failures, or just plain crappy performance, or worse it could easily make you blind or abruptly end your life. Even if there's the standard waiver etc, having an incident would absolutely destroy my passion for this project. So I figured I'd have to assemble them, but I also figured more people would begin to want them, so I had to just offer it to those involved in the early discussions, because I'd probably not have the time to build them for more people. If more people ended up wanting one down the road, I'd have to charge for my time and likewise become a supporter. However I don't see this really going that way because really how many people out there are crazy enough to spend four figures on a "flashlight" in this day and age. Just a few die hards here like myself.



I could be in line for your light!  

I can get approx 200mcp (very conservatively speaking, it should be much higher) for $1200 shipped for fun. Too big though and i don't have a truck/van transportation to lug it out.... Front aperture 24" i believe and much longer/higher. VSS-3 is 150mcp max for 14" IIRC.


----------



## BVH

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*



get-lit said:


> ......So I figured I'd have to assemble them, but I also figured more people would begin to want them, so I had to just offer it to those involved in the early discussions, because I'd probably not have the time to build them for more people. If more people ended up wanting one down the road, I'd have to charge for my time and likewise become a supporter. However I don't see this really going that way because really how many people out there are crazy enough to spend four figures on a "flashlight" in this day and age. Just a few die hards here like myself.



I'm still definitely interested in one and would expect to pay for not only the parts, but your time in R&D and assembly.


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

You're definitely on the list BVH. I'm just one guy with many responsibilities and very little money, so it's still going to be a while. One day at a time. Thanks for offering towards the other costs, but I don't think you'd want to be doing that. They are going to be way up there, because there's four large molded parts and several small molded parts. Injection molding would cost hundreds of thousands, so I'm going to make them one at a time with fiberglass or kevlar vacuum mold layup. Much more cost effective and you get much stronger parts, but the plugs to make the molds will still cost me tens of thousands, but that's much better than the cost of injection molding all this. Like I said, I really got to take the time to get it right before I move to that step.


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Need some input here. Currently the light uses a 10.5" diameter reflector within a 11.25" diameter housing. If I can extend the reflector to 11.5" diameter, I'd get much more CP due to the additional portion of light gather as well as the larger aperture, but the housing diameter would be 12.25" rather than 11.25". Do you feel this would be too large for general portability?


----------



## BVH

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

A relative "extra" inch in overall O.D. is of little consequence to me. Your main idea is, I believe, to build one heck of a thrower and the larger diameter reflector supports that goal. In plain English - larger is better!


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

The main idea is a "practical" mega thrower. Practical is really key, otherwise it would be a 14" diameter reflector. From a practical standpoint, going from a 11.25" diameter housing to a 12.25" housing is really pushing the boundaries for something to be easily carried, while the gains in CP would be somewhat noticeable. I could always go smaller afterwards. Guess I'll go ahead and add the extra inch on this one. Thanks BVH.


----------



## FRITZHID

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*



BVH said:


> A relative "extra" inch in overall O.D. is of little consequence to me. Your main idea is, I believe, to buile one heck of a thrower and the larger diameter reflector supports that goal. In plain English - larger is better!



this comming from the 60" arc lamp man!


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

I know, it just wasn't so good for hiking and boating :ironic:


----------



## Jarski

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Just be careful with adding more inches, it may get out of control and you get a 60" monster instead of something comfortable to carry :devil:

To the beamshots and lights, awesome work. These things are just plain ridiculous! (In a good way)


----------



## ma_sha1

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Its not all about inches, its how you work those inches


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

But that's what they all say when they don't have a 60" monster! :twothumbs


----------



## ma_sha1

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

These are not led lights


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Well, to me LED means "Luminous Energy Discharge"


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

The past month I've been trying to reduce the overall size of the light by finding the best trade off in reducing air ducting sizes versus air pressure and fan power required for proper cooling. My tests look like a life support system. In additional to the ballast, ignitor, dc converter, fan, fan controller, three push switches, and a rocker switch, I've got hooked up three temperature probes, two differential air pressure probes, two air speed sensors, one air flow sensor, one lux meter, two volt meters, and one amp meter. My final testing is about complete, then I can finalize the design and send out CAD files for the molds to be made.


----------



## Walterk

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*



get-lit said:


> TIn additional to the ballast, ignitor, dc converter, fan, fan controller, three push switches, and a rocker switch, I've got hooked up three temperature probes, two differential air pressure probes, two air speed sensors, one air flow sensor, one lux meter, two volt meters, and one amp meter.



Now this is an engineered light. Can't wait to get to know whats-its-name!


----------



## LumenHound

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Is it safe to say the Nightsword = Tour De Force in design?


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

yep, still Nightsword.


----------



## Juggernaut

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Greet progress Get-lit, I literally come back to CPF every once and a while just so I can check on this awesome light you are building!


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Thanks jug.

In the last test I heard a zap and smelled something not good during ignition. Then I saw one of the test probe leads was vaporized because it was a bit too close to the cathode lead.

As of now I'm testing various air filter media for optimum filtration in limited space and limited pressure loss. Air flow through the media has to be within certain bounds to also serve as a mist eliminator in wet weather. Mist and water won't get inside from any direction in any operating position, but the electronics will be silicone sealed for added measure.

I wanted to go with Kevlar for the housing, but the housing material has to be machinable for the intake and exhaust vents, so I'm going with S-Glass fiberglass outer housing with internal Kevlar logitudinal cores for lightweight strength.

Also considering a 4-way (actually a 5-position) navigation button like the Maxabeam, with forward and back for the focus control, left for strobe, and right for low/high beam. But since low/high should not be momentary, I need to find method to convert the momentary pulses to full on/off. I'm sure there's a trick little device for that out there somewhere.

The design has changed somewhat from the last images, for added strength, better airflow, more air filter surface area, and a cleaner overall design, as well as accommodating the 11.5" reflector rather than 10.5". The forward area of the handle now angles downward a bit for more comfort on the thumb, instead of flat across. That makes a big difference for me. The housing is going to be virtually indestructible with strong outer body and so much inner bracing.

Oh ya, I didn't use tempered glass for a test and the glass shattered from the heat about 2 minutes in. I was in a hurry for an air flow test and used my coffee table glass over the housing. No more coffee table.

These two mishaps cost me another fun grand. The test probe lead alone cost most of that because it was one of two thermocouple probes that have to be embedded within the lamp glass at the anode and cathode seals.


----------



## vestureofblood

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

How did you get the picture from google earth to CPF?


----------



## ma_sha1

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*



vestureofblood said:


> How did you get the picture from google earth to CPF?



1. Use "print screen" function to capture screen shot
2. Paste into a graphics program & add text if needed, if you don't have one you can use windows paint brush program. 
3. Save as jpeg & then upload to image shack as usual


----------



## vestureofblood

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Thanks man. Using that was a super idea. You saved me having to buy a range finder if nothing else.


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

I've been pushing hard on this project and here's the latest. Tons of major revisions. Diameter = 12", Length = 17", Rear Housing Width = 5" / Height = 5.75". All Mil-Spec components, should meet IP66 spec. Water jet & dust can not get in from any angle under any orientation. Internal components silicone encapsulated for added measure. Fine pore 60 ppi air filtered, Firgelli linear actuator focus control, strobe mode, low power mode, precision XYZ alignment. 75,000 Lumen, est. >40 million CP. 1000W, universal 90v-300v AC/DC powered. Weight balanced. Ergonomic handle with down tilted thumb buttons. EMI filtered & shielded. This is the 325th model over the past several years, and should be the final model to be molded.

*Side Profile*








*Tail Standing*






*For Proportion (Photo of Some Guy at 6')*


----------



## Walterk

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Looks great! 
All that, AND IP66 is an accomplishment.
Convenient to have some flat surfaces.


----------



## ma_sha1

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

OMFG, that looks awesome with killer specs!


----------



## BVH

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

That looks Fantastic!! Can't wait to see you light it off when done!


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*



Walterk said:


> Looks great!
> All that, AND IP66 is an accomplishment.
> Convenient to have some flat surfaces.



I actually don't prefer flat surfaces, but the rear had to be squared off to fit the air ducting in the smallest possible space, and the lower half of the rear housing encloses the ballast and DC converter.

Every time I'd review the design over the years, I'd think of improvements, and it often got to the point where I thought it would never end, but it seems I've come to the end of the road in the design & testing phase because I'm not finding any more ways to improve anymore. It's a very exciting transition in the project for me.


----------



## Mr. Tone

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Looks great, get-lit. I can't wait to see this design come to fruition for you. I have been watching and listening to your developments on this from the beginning with much interest. I just completed my first HID mod with great success. I may have to try short-arc sometime but the extra expense and danger of it all will keep me on the sidelines for a while still. It sure is fun watching the rest of you guys go all out though!


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Thank you. I added corrugation. Pics updated.

EDIT: I wonder if there's a soft coat that can be used for the gelcoat. I've been seeing that on some of the newer products, like some hair dryers. It's like a soft rubbery coating, but not rubberized. Anyone know what that type of coating is called?


----------



## Nuker-

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

The higher end logitech MX mouse has this coating all over its body. It is plastic and its hard but it has a very super thin coating of some kind of rubber.


----------



## Mr. Tone

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

I think I remember 4sevens saying something about a coating like that on their preon series. Maybe a preon owner will remember a trade name for it.



get-lit said:


> Thank you. I added corrugation. Pics updated.
> 
> EDIT: I wonder if there's a soft coat that can be used for the gelcoat. I've been seeing that on some of the newer products, like some hair dryers. It's like a soft rubbery coating, but not rubberized. Anyone know what that type of coating is called?


----------



## 2100

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Short arcs are really nice for throw but not exactly a lot of lumens. (I want both). I now have an approx 8000 bulb lumens (5900L OTF) 100W 3.8 mil cd light. So get-lit's is like 10pcs of mine and it's portable. (just bring your own genset or UPS or 10pcs of 7.2AH SLAs and your custom metal container LOL!). 

*WOW!*


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Revising


----------



## 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*



DM51 said:


> *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*



DM51 said:


> 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*



2100 said:


> 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?


----------



## 2100

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*



get-lit said:


> 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.



Hi bro, roger on that...i know what are you trying to say. I think a general guy also would not know how bright a 7W white laser looks like, nevermind the divergence etc... 

For a 1W laser, the issue with a 445nm blue one is that while the divergence is high, another bigger issue is the inability of our eyes to focus blue light accurate. Past 500m or so you will never be able to focus the dot, plus if you wear glasses that would definitely put another variable into the equation. 532nm is really good but a 1W reliable one and true 1W of 532nm output probably costs a Maxabeam or something. (a lot of those sub 1k ones can put out 700-800mW on a LPM but have lots of IR content in it as they are unfiltered)

Anyway, i think you are probably more or less correct on the figures if everything goes smoothly like reflector quality etc....there are so many variables that can drop the CP and make it so far from modelled figures. Hope you really can put it off. 350M CP is not difficult to do for 1k plus, but to make it portable is key!  

I used to do quite a few events and they do have 25W YAGs but they almost never can run it full power + purposely undiverged due to safety to ground (people) and air (airplanes) because in Singapore this is a very small country and the air approach/corridors for both military and commercial traffic are so tight and close that there really isn't much space to shoot. I am not sure what are the laws in USA, but i guess you might need to check if there are any satellites overhead as well. LOL! 

Advertising searchlights are a bit different because they do not fall under the same restrictions (until something happens that is or someone complains in the papers LOL! ). Each searchlight are in the 300m CP region for the 4-5kW 24" aperture units. AFAIK, the most powerful commercial ones are 10kW used in the US as well as Beijing Olympics. Here's the US one : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV4xuPdFswE

We had these during our National Day 2011 celebrations, they were able to illuminate Cirrus clouds which were ~ 8km because they have a preset in which all the lights are aimed at rxactly the same spot for that "thick fat bright beam" effect, distance should be around there from what i checked on weather underground at that moment. Actually more than that because it was aimed not vertically upwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aySFA_KAw_k

For those who has seen the Tribute of Light with its 88 searchlights aimed upwards, yeah it is like that. Pretty cool.

Sorry for the OT!


----------



## RCantor

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Wow, just finding out about this. Awesome! If you hit an airplane will you ignite its fuel? Better be careful! Could be a good anti terrorist weapon.


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*



Mr. Tone said:


> 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.



Thank you for the positive feedback, it really helps keep me motivated when things get tough along the way. A current issue I'm dealing with is exhaust back pressure with head wind. The exhaust of the SX16 is circumferential to the housing which greatly helps reduce back pressure. That's a critical requirement for 100+ mph, but a "circumferential" exhaust it is not at all compatible with the Nightsword if it were to be optimized for candlepower because the Anode could not be properly cooled, so either a very high pressure (and loud) fan has to be used and the head wind limited to 45 mph (5 mbar @ 13" diameter), or I have to come up with a forward facing intake shroud to equalize the differential pressure. I probably looked pretty silly speeding down the road holding a 13" Christmas plate out the window with air tubes taped to it yesterday. Neighbors never know what to expect from us here.



Mr. Tone said:


> 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?



The UV is very intense, but the tempered glass lens will block the UV. You would get eye damage from viewing the arc directly, however there will be zero spill light in the design and you will not be able to see the arc. Unless of course you are within the actual beam. That would be a problem.


2100, one of my motivations with pursuing searchlights as opposed to lasers is the fact that there's restrictions on the use of high power lasers. Really takes the fun factor away when you're not allowed to use it. The other motivation is cloud bounce. To me nothing beats throwing tons of lumen to the clouds.




RCantor said:


> Wow, just finding out about this. Awesome! If you hit an airplane will you ignite its fuel? Better be careful! Could be a good anti terrorist weapon.



It wouldn't physically hurt an airplane but it could cause issues for the pilots if you were to deliberately track the plane with the beam. They would report it and you would face criminal charges. Never ever do that.


----------



## Mr. Tone

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

The fan stuff sounds complicated. Good luck with that. It is good to know that tempered glass can block most of the UV.


----------



## BVH

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

I always get excited when I see get-lit posts in this thread! I'm looking forward to the finished product and always enjoy the very technical details you post.


----------



## 2100

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*



get-lit said:


> 2100, one of my motivations with pursuing searchlights as opposed to lasers is the fact that there's restrictions on the use of high power lasers. Really takes the fun factor away when you're not allowed to use it. The other motivation is cloud bounce. To me nothing beats throwing tons of lumen to the clouds.



This i'd 100% agree with you. I have a couple of 55/75/100W HIDs (100W driven with 24V so definitely it's optimised for power and i measured 110W input actually) but never got good cloud bounce. Recently i acquired a big reflector HID and i got nearly 4 million, finally got to do decent cloud bouncing! It's really a stupid way to enjoyment but i guess the little kid in us loves it!

So yeah i am excited what a portable 200-300 mcp light can do in the real world.


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Happy new year everyone. When thinking about using diffused glass to defocus the beam without a beam center hole, I considered the possibility of using "Smart Glass". There's a type that dims the light and a type that diffuses the light. PDLC (Polymer Dispersed Liquid Crystal) glass diffuses the light. When looking into the viability, as you would guess there's a patent...
http://www.google.com/patents/US5644369

I'm getting a bit frustrated with claims of the obvious, however it may be still workable. The patent claims applications using PDLC glass in conjunction with optical lenses and fresnel lenses. Technically the term "optical lens" is a lens which refracts the light path, but the lens on a parabolic reflective searchlight does not refract the light path. Using PDLC glass would provide for a solid state solution to an adjustable beam pattern without the dark hole, and eliminate the need for a motor focus mechanism. There may be downsides to look into though.

This thread has regained my discussions here at CPF and I don't want to derail the thread. ma-sha1 or mods please let me know if this should be somewhere else. Thanks.


----------



## DM51

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

I would like to split this thread to make a new one, with the title "Nightsword" (or whatever title get-lit thinks would be appropriate.)

ma_sha's original "Superlights shoot-out..." thread will remain, with a link to the new one which would begin at get-lit's post #19, where the Nightsword project is discussed. 

Before I do split the thread, I would be obviously like to hear comments for or against the idea.


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

I think that would be a great way to do this thread justice. I was reluctant to start a new thread because I did not want to get anyone hyped with so much work to be done yet. It'd be more for those with some patience to follow the progress and ideas along the way.

EDIT: Maybe title it "Nightsword Progress Discussion"


----------



## BVH

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Location matters not to me. Just point the light to show me the way to the new thread!  Have a question on the glass when the new one is open.


----------



## Machete God

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

I just discovered and read through the thread, and the question that has been hanging at the back of my mind from page one is, "Why is this awesome project "hidden" in a shoot-out thread?"


----------



## DM51

Done!  

The original Short Arc shoot-out thread is here, and I've put in a link there to this thread.


----------



## MDJAK

You guys are amazing. I won't pretend to be able to understand the graphs, the math, or the science behind building such powerful lights, but I sure love reading your posts and looking at the results. My hat is off to you.

mark


----------



## get-lit

Good question Machete God. There is an original Nightsword thread from a few years ago, but I'm at a different phase of the project than back then. I haven't started a thread because I didn't intend to get back into the discussions while working on this. That's because I didn't want to string people along. I have four children and I work a lot, so it's been difficult to move this along in a timely manner. It also costs a lot, so I have to move along according to what I can afford to put into it.

ma-sha's thread motivated me to post a beamshot and then I ended up discussing the project again. I'm glad I did, because I decided to go back to the roots of no compromise for candlepower. It's been difficult for me to sacrifice things like a nice flood pattern when defocusing the beam, but I got unanimous feedback.


----------



## Mr. Tone

So what design differences are there to go from the more useful beam to ultimate candlepower? Would it have to be a totally different reflector plus a focus adjustment? Is it possible for you to have 2 different reflectors made once you recoup your investment? With the goal that you could use the same light, lamp, etc. and simply switch the reflector and adjust focus for a more useful beam. Is there a lot more to it than this or am I close? I do remember from Ra's MegaBlaster thread that the reflector he had custom made was well over $1000!


----------



## get-lit

Great questions. First off, with this much output, the reflector does cost the big bucks because it has to be Rhodium plated Nickel to endure the shear output. Aluminum just can't cut it. And it has to be top grade precision. Considering having a diamond-turned mandrel machined for the most precise reflector, which would cost a one-time $5000. Also they have to have the latest "Bright" Rhodium coating. Finally, they have to have a new and unique "Enhancement" coating to increase reflectance of the Bright Rhodium from around 70% to around 90% and to boost endurance.

It would be very nice to make a universally compatible system, in which different reflector housings are interchangeable with the electronics/air filter housing and interchangeable lamps and power supplies. I have designed the lamp mount to be compatible with different lamps, and I have designed the electronics housing to be compatible with different power supplies. I'm assembling the power supplies as single-piece encapsulated "modules" to bolt into the housing. However, high-power lamps have larger power supplies and separate ignitor, and low-power lamps would use the same housing so it wouldn't be the most efficient use of space for the low-power lamps. The high-power power supplies are very space efficient, so it's not that big of a difference. Also, the fan and ducting could be much smaller for low-power lamps, so again, designing a universal system does not make for the most efficient use of space for low powered lamps. The fan controller would reduce fan power for low power lamps. That will be a component that I will embed in the power supply "module".

I've considered many methods to utilize interchangeable reflectors. However, if I want this to be as strong and light as possible, the reflector housing and electronics housing have to be a single-piece structure, so that the layup fibers extend along the length of the entire housing. Also with a single piece housing, the handle can greatly increase strength and rigidity by running fibers along the length of it's wall structure from the reflector housing to the rear of the electronics housing, rather than bolting to only the electronics housing and supporting nothing at all. You can see this is all included in the drawings on post *#50*.

I've considered this quite a bit and I prefer to not stray from this design. Again, it maximizes strength and rigidity with less weight. That's important for something this size to be more portable. I'd rather make a separate entire mold for a different reflector. Maybe call it the Xiphos since it would be a smaller, more versatile Nightsword.

The specific reason that the beam spread becomes much less useful in flood mode when optimizing for candlepower, is that I'd have to utilize a reflector with maximized source-to-reflector distance for every angle from the source. For this I'm going back to a super long focal-length reflector, which is the traditional searchlight configuration. Reflection distance is maximized behind the source. I will also be using a lamp-mounted retro-reflector to direct the light in front of the source to the rear. It eliminates spill light from killing your eyes and directs it to be used on target.

Medium focal-length reflectors on the other hand, such as with the Spectrolab SX-16, have a nice mix of short source-to-reflection distances for every angle from the source, with long distances in front of the source and short distances behind the source. This creates a central beam from the longer front distances, with slight spill from the shorter rear distances. In flood mode, the light from the longer front distances distinctly diverge, while the "spill" light from the shorter rear distances better fills in the center hole than if all distances were maximize as with a long focal length reflector. The problem with the SX-16 is that it's reflector vertex hole is much too big to take advantage of the usefulness of a medium focal length reflector in flood mode, and as a result it still produces a more pronounced center hole than it could have.

Then there's short focal-length reflectors, including the Maxabeam and the MaxaBlaster. Short and long focal-length reflectors both maximize candlepower at the expense of a more distinct center hole in flood mode, but they do it conversely. Short focal-length reflectors maximize the reflection distances for the light directed to the front of the source rather than to the rear. The rear distances are so small, the rear light is essentially the same as the front spill light from a long focal-length reflector, and does nothing for either the focused beam nor for flood mode because it's too spread out. A forward-facing retro-reflector could be used for the rear light in a short focal-length application, just as a rear-facing retro-reflector could be used to for the front light in a long focal-length application.

Short and long focal length are converse solutions, but I'm opting for long focal length because the overall size of the housing is greatly reduced and more weight balanced. This is because the reflector is shorter, and the lamp and lamp mount assembly can be moved forward to within the reflector to make a dual-purpose use of space. Also, a long focal-length reflector allows for a much larger vertex hole needed for air ventilation without reducing light gather.

If I make a smaller, more versatile Xiphos version, it will likely be both a smaller reflector and a smaller housing, with smaller ventilation and fan strictly for low-power lamps, up to 300 watts. It would also cost considerably less to produce, but the fun stuff comes first.


----------



## Mr. Tone

Wow, that seems complex to maximize the design. Thanks for the explanation. I can't believe the cost of the reflector you need for max candlepower, that really bites. From the way I read your post it looks like you would prefer to use a different lamp for max candlepower versus a more useful beam, correct?


----------



## get-lit

The lamp is a super class short arc lamp, and I'm thrilled with it. It has a small luminous area relative to output, even smaller than the 1600W XBO (used in the Nightsun SX-16 searchlight) with comparable lumen output. It is also a DC lamp, so it concentrates the light closer to the cathode, but not as concentrated as the XBO 1600W. It should be on par with the XBO 1600W overall. The light concentration could be more condensed if it were fed more amps than volts, but then the power supply would be much larger and about 20 times heavier because it would require more current-limiting components, which are what make the up the bulk of the power supply.

Also, the lamp would require a much larger sealing method to handle the amps. The current lamp uses all low-expansion materials in a compact overall size. The lamp seal is Molybdenum foil sealed within Quartz glass. Molybdenum foil is the only metal that doesn't expand and crack the Quartz glass when heated. Since this sealing method does not expand, it's the only method that can be used with a lamp-mounted retro-reflector. On the other hand, hi amperage lamp seals are what make lamps so much bigger and heavier in high power configurations. They also eliminate the possibility of using a lamp-mounted retro-reflector because they are constructed of materials of varying expansion rates along the length of the glass. The current lamp has the highest output achievable with Molybdenum seals that best accommodate portability in a high power light, and again the only way to accommodate a lamp-mounted retro-reflector.

Since the lamp produces the same (a bit more) output as a 1600 watt short arc Quartz Xenon lamp, while using only 800-900 Watts, it requires just over half the power to the lamp, and the power supply is more efficient by requiring less current output. So again, for portability with portable batteries or generators, it's the only way to go. It's also the only way to run the light from boat or automobile power without requiring super hi amp alternators and extra batteries with limited runtime.

It also produces less than half the heat of a 1600 watt short arc Quartz Xenon lamp. Therefore, it requires much less cooling ventilation ducting and fan size, again better for accommodating a portable system.

When it comes to super class lights, mercury-based high-pressure short arc lamps better accommodate portability in every aspect. For the same overall system size and weight with a Quartz Xenon configuration, total output would be cut in half.

If you want more candlepower with mercury-based high-pressure short arc lamps having Molybdenum seals, you would just reduce the lamp voltage and arc gap. Then you have yourself a P-VIP type lamp, which I'm making this usable for as well.

EDIT: Also, the cost of the reflector is on par with the cost of the other components; namely the ballast and the lamp. So that's not a big deal here.


----------



## Mr. Tone

get-lit said:


> EDIT: Also, the cost of the reflector is on par with the cost of the other components; namely the ballast and the lamp. So that's not a big deal here.



Wow, that makes me all the more appreciative of your efforts and explanations to CPF. This is a serious investment, indeed.


----------



## get-lit

I've been conflicted over the compromises for "all out" CP and probably going with something that works much better all around, something without limited headwind, with excellent flood capability, longer lasting brightness, full lamp life, more streamlined design, and weight balanced, but still with around 60 MCP rather than 100 MCP.


----------



## get-lit

Hi all, I did some testing to compare spot patterns and flood patterns of medium focal length reflectors vs short focal length reflectors. To do this more easily, I used 1/3.75x scale reflectors (in relation to the actual light) and a 14W 1.5mm gap Solarc lamp. Here's the results:

*CANDLEPOWER:* Both Medium Focal Length and Long Focal Length produce the same "max" lux, however the Medium Focal Length produces the same max lux across roughly 4 times the beam area of the Short Focal Length, and although the Short Focal Length produced the same max lux across a smaller diameter, it's beam was wider and dimmer outside the max lux region. You can see these differences in the photos, but keep in mind these differences are more noticeable in person, since photos on screen can't reveal the actual dynamic range of brightness.

*LUMEN OUTPUT:* The Medium Focal Length outputs 20% more lumen. For the full scale light to be produced, the difference will be 16% due to the DC lamp being oriented to optimize light gather, vs the AC lamp used in the small scale test.

*FLOOD PATTERN:* The Short Focal Length simply kicks butt. Not much to say here when you look at the photos. The Short Focal Length is so much more versatile in this regard. My earlier modeling of the Short FL did not render the brightness variance in flood mode as well as we'd see it, and I was led to believe Short Focal Length lights such as the Maxabeam lose too much light in flood pattern than other focal lengths. Not true.


*MEDIUM FL SPOT PATTERN (On White Screen)*
Canon EOS D60, ISO-100, 1/200 sec, f/2.8






*SHORT FL SPOT PATTERN (On White Screen)*
Canon EOS D60, ISO-100, 1/200 sec, f/2.8






*MEDIUM FL SPOT PATTERN (On Objects)*
Canon EOS D60, ISO-100, 1/30 sec, f/1.4





*SHORT FL SPOT PATTERN (On Objects)*
Canon EOS D60, ISO-100, 1/30 sec, f/1.4





*MEDIUM FL FLOOD PATTERN (On Objects)*
Canon EOS D60, ISO-100, 1/6 sec, f/1.4





*SHORT FL FLOOD PATTERN (On Objects)*
Canon EOS D60, ISO-100, 1/6 sec, f/1.4





*SHORT FL FLOOD PATTERN (On Objects) - Even Wider Flood With Still Much Smaller Hole*
Canon EOS D60, ISO-100, 1/6 sec, f/1.4





Distances are 55 feet in a basement, so nevermind the mess. It's pool supplies stored for Winter.

More Outside...

*MEDIUM FL SPOT PATTERN (On Trees)*
Canon EOS D60, ISO-100, 1/6 sec, f/1.4





*SHORT FL SPOT PATTERN (On Trees)*
Canon EOS D60, ISO-100, 1/6 sec, f/1.4





*MEDIUM FL FLOOD PATTERN (On Trees)*
Canon EOS D60, ISO-100, .6 sec, f/1.4





*SHORT FL FLOOD PATTERN (On Trees)*
Canon EOS D60, ISO-100, .6 sec, f/1.4





Both above flood shots are spread just enough to begin to illuminate the last tree on the very far right. That tree is actually much more visible to the eye than the photos reveal. Something to consider is that a very high powered searchlight would not typically be used with this much fllood, so the hole in the Medium Focal Length would tend to be smaller than this for more typical flood use. Again, the Short Focal Length flood pattern is excellent, but the Medium Focal Length is much more "throwy" even with the same candlepower. This is because the max lux is located within much more of the beam diameter. With this little amount of lumen output in these tests, I could only see the beam in the outside atmosphere with the Medium Focal Length. It was definitely more fun to play with.

I definitely consider the Medium Focal Length more of a *"search" light* and the Short Focal Length more of a *"work" light*. They are optimized for two different purposes. My last high powered beamshots were a Medium Focal Length design. I'm a bit disappointed because I was hoping to be impressed with the Short Focal Length for this application, and I don't think I will be going to a Short Focal Length after all. It's better for lower powered lights because they are geared for shorter distances which benefit more from a great flood pattern, but for very high powered lights, Medium Focal Length gets more light on target for the long haul and it's flood pattern would be limited to medium range distances rather than up close, therefore it's less capable flood pattern doesn't affect it so much. The SX-16 Nightsun is also a Medium Focal Length, but even more limited in flood due to it's massive vertex hole in the reflector.

A long Focal Length would bring it up another notch, but without any flood capability whatsoever. I have a scaled Long Focal Length that I just might compare against the scaled Medium Focal Length.


----------



## BVH

I really enjoy reading your posts and especially your test results Get-Lit. You explain it so that's it really easy to understand a very technical subject!


----------



## Patriot

The idea of a 60mcp beam that can defocus to some useful flood sound like every spotlight junkie's dream. Really enjoyed the experimental shots with the Short FL reflector though. Thanks for the thorough updates Get-Lit. Like BVH stated, you make it pretty easy to understand what you're talking about.


----------



## get-lit

Thanks guys. My dilemma was that modeling predicts 60 mcp with a short focal length, with the difference in cp being due to optimized orientation of the DC lamp. However, the max lux of the short focal length would be within a much smaller beam diameter and the medium focal length would still be more "throwy" with a more vivid light beam in the atmosphere and more light "on target" at distance.


----------



## get-lit

revising...


----------



## cracky

great project!


----------



## get-lit

I had considered a solution which would provide for 80+ MCP and great flood. It would use a very short focal length, but since practically no light rear of the source contributes to CP with a short FL, to attain this I'd use a forward-facing retro-reflector to apply that rear directed light to the reflector surface to the front of the source. It's a great all around solution and far exceeds the Medium FL in CP, as the Medium FL has no real use for a retro-reflector since the light is distributed evenly among short and long reflection distances.

The solution has the same net result in CP as going with a long FL and a rear-facing retro-reflector of similar "overall" size for portability (diameters differ but overall size similar). But the long focal length has no variance in source to reflection distance over the source's luminance angles, and as a result, has the most limited flood ability (the most bright flood but with a massive center hole).

So it would seem that a very short FL with forward-facing retro-reflector would be the best solution, but there is another consideration. Although these two solutions produce about the same CP, as mentioned before, the very short FL archieves max CP in a very small diameter surrounded by a flood in spot mode. On the other hand, nearly all of the light from a long FL is applied within the max CP diameter. It has much more of the max CP light. This aspect when combined with no flood in spot mode makes for the most visible beam of light and most "light on target" at distance.

Here's some more modeled shots to illustrate. Note that...
-These consider a fair amount of retro-reflector alignment loss and lamp glass re-transmission loss
-These do not consider point of peak luminance within the source, which would provide additional peak beam luminance than calculated.
-When considering point of peak luminance for this lamp, figure conservatively 25% additional peak beam luminance for Medium FL, and about 10% for retro-reflected models.

*Medium FL* (Last Prototype)





*Very Short FL w/Retro-Reflector*





*Long FL w/Retro-Reflector*





Here's with beam intensities highlighted...

*Medium FL*




*
Very Short FL w/Retro-Reflector*





*Long FL w/Retro-Reflector*





The red circle is the peak illuminance beam diameter, over 80 MCP with retro-reflected very short FL and retro-reflected long FL, but the
long FL has MUCH more of it, and it's average illuminance beam diameter is double the lux. The Long FL with retro-reflector simply can't be matched, but flood is not so good, super large hole with flood at only 23.32 degrees total. It's basically a ring of light, courtesty of high etendue f/D ratio.

*Long FL Flood*





So inevitably, if you want to have the best of both worlds, the most visible beam with most light on target at distance, and great flood ability, you must have two different lights. I'm well aware I've been going in circles with this, it's been a very difficult decision. When it's all said and done, I think I would always be wishing I had gone big, so at this point I'm all in for long FL with retro-reflector. I can make something for more practical use later. Keep in mind, the last real beam shots were of the Medium FL, so if you liked those, it only gets much better.


----------



## DM51

get-lit said:


> *Long FL w/Retro-Reflector*


_*DROOOLLL  oo: *_


----------



## BVH

+2 to that!


----------



## Parker VH

+3 to that!!


----------



## get-lit

Thanks for the support. A 12" reflector is just too big, so I'm going with 11" with the same FL. Much more manageable size. Net beam lumen will be 50k instead of ~53k and estimated CP at ~75M instead of ~82M. It's not much of a trade off because much of the candlepower comes from closer to the vertex rather than the aperture in this configuration, due to the long FL in conjunction with the length/height relation of the luminous area.

Edit: When going back and forth between the 12" and 11" beam drawings in this configuration, it is very difficult to notice any difference at all. It's so subtle that 11" is the clear choice for portability and headwind concerns.


----------



## ma_sha1

get-lit said:


> It would use a very short focal length, but *since practically no light rear of the source contributes to CP with a short FL*, to attain this I'd use a forward-facing retro-reflector to apply that rear directed light to the reflector surface to the front of the source.



Nice progress!

Can you draw a picture of this? Do you have a big hole in the short FL reflector so you added another reflector to collect more light? What equation would allow you to reflect into the reflector again , both are forward facing, yet still stay parabola?

I am using a 9.6" short 0.75" FL reflector shape similar to Maxa Beam reflector, it has a small rear opening about 2", The focal point is about 1/2 inch above that rear hole. would love to try adding a retro reflector if it could be further improve CP, just not quite understand how would this work?


----------



## get-lit

The 9.6" CA .75" FL is a great reflector, with lots of reflection distance in front of the source, and pretty much worthless behind the source, so it's very suitable for a forward-facing retro-reflector to take advantage of that rearward light. 

The retro-reflector is NOT a parabola. It's a spheric reflector to redirect the light from the source back to the source again, but in the opposite direction. It has some losses due to the additional reflection, and passing through the lamp glass again. As the lamp ages, the losses begin to increase, but even until the end of lamp life, CP is greatly benefited if everything is optimized. That's why I include lamp life as a parameter for modeling. I run comparisons at 50% lamp life to find out the average benefit with a retro-reflector. Reflection losses aren't so bad with a spheric reflector because reflection angles are perpendicular, whereas reflectance is lost at more incident angles (another reason I like long FL). I'm actually having the retro-reflectors Rhodium coated and applying a new 90% reflectance enhanced coating.

Try to keep the retro-reflector small so that it can fit within the primary reflector without too big of a hole, especially if you plan to also have space for forced air to pass. For instance a 1.5" diameter retro-reflector would fit nicely within a 2" vertex hole with some space for air to pass. Where it gets tricky is if you want to offset the focus for flood (this reflector will produce a great flood), you really have to minimize the vertex hole diameter because a ton of light could easily be lost with a short FL reflector having a large vertex hole when focus is offset.

What lamp are you using? I could model it up to optimize your retro-reflector dimensions. Better yet, I'll post a URL for you to do this yourself. I wrote the program as a web application. However, I don't want to be consuming CPU and bandwidth, so I'd have to set it up with a password for you play around with. You'll be able to see just how much light is being lost through the vertex hole, without or without a retro-reflector, by entering different values for the vertex hole diameter. But I only have the luminous intensity profile measured and entered for a short-arc DC mercury lamp, so for instance if you are using AC, you would currently have to model it with the DC lamp twice for each comparison, once with the anode "out" and once with the anode "in", and then average the results for AC. Not as good as actually measuring the luminous intensity profile and entering it in, but should be fairly close for something quick.

However, if you want to do the work of measuring your lamp's luminous intensity profile and then send me the measurements, I'll set up the lamp profile for you. You'd just record lux readings for each angle from 0-180 degrees. They have to be measured from the same exact distance, so you could use a string. Of course the measurements would also have to be taken in the dark without light colored walls, outside would be better. The readings are then totaled and relative luminance values are generated for each angle. The program actually iterates at 1/2 angles, so you could take 1/2 angle measurements but that would be 360 measurements and not really necessary.

Edit: Here's the URL. I'll PM the PW. Be sure to read through the info at the bottom to get an understanding of how it works.


----------



## get-lit

I've modeled the housing with 11"CA Long-FL primary reflector with retro-reflector. Managed to get the large aperture in a strong compact light-weight balanced design...


----------



## Phil Ament

Hi there get-lit. The above modelling of your light looks really really nice to me, however I just thought that I would make a suggestion or two. In the pictures it looks as though the lead/cord runs pretty close to the top rear edge, which also appears to be quite sharp looking. I am not too sure if the modelling of your light is an exact representation or not, but maybe the top rear edge that is located just below the lead should be slightly smoother and more rounded or "angled off", so as to avoid any possibly damaging long term chafing. 

You also could "angle off" the bottom rear edge a little as well so that it would be parallel to the ground, as not only would this then match the top one a little more, but it would also provide a much larger surface area to support the rear of the light for whenever it was to be laid down on a flat surface, as opposed to a very easily damaged sharp edge, and therefore it would also provide a much more stable resting platform for the rear of the light.

Also, and due to the fact that I have only ever read about it (as opposed to hearing about it) the one thing that is slightly confusing is the branding, and just how it is actually pronounced. Is it a night-sword or is it a nights-word? It may or may not look quite as neat, but maybe a hyphen or a spacing is in order! Actually, after having another look at it I don't think that a space between the two words would look that bad at all, especially if that fine line that runs right through them is still a continuos one! 

Alternatively, and if it really is a "NIGHT SWORD" just as I am guessing that it is, then maybe to seperate the two words you could just place a symbol of a sword vertically between the "T" and the "S" and leaning over at the same angle as the letters, or horizontally so it looks a bit like a hyphen. If you much prefer not to separate the two words, then you could just have it so that the brand name is actually positioned longitudinally along the blade of a sword.


Anyway these are just my thoughts, but I must say that the rest of it looks quite exquisite, and lastly I was just wondering when my sample will be arriving!



Sincerely Yours
Phil Ament :wave:

P.S. Hey there people, I wouldn't mind some feedback on my observations and my comments!


----------



## ma_sha1

alternatively, maybe run the cord through the bottom in?stead top?


----------



## get-lit

I appreciate the feedback, especially with the little touches. I prefer not to run the cord from underneath, as the light should be able to rest flat on the bottom with the reflector over an edge. Also the rear bottom edge would tent to land on the cord when setting the light down on occasion. I will see if I can include a slight recessed eyelet along the top rear edge of the housing.

I considered ramping up the bottom trailing edge of the housing to meet the angle when resting on the aperture, and it's probably something that should be done. It will add slightly to the overall length in order to fit the components inside.

I came up with the name as a spin off from the Nightsun. The Nightsun is aptly named as an airborne light that's like the sun shining down at night. I named this conversely as a hand-held light, a sword of light. I suppose Lightsword would be good, but that's already been used for other projects in the past. I may add a slight spacing between the words. If you look closely, there is a horizontal beam of light through the logo coming from the "D" and it could pass through the space as a dash. Thanks for the thoughts on this.

I can't give a timeline on the progress, only a rundown of what's currently being accomplished. At the moment, a mandrel and tooling are underway for a retro-reflector I designed to mount to the lamp. It will be replaceable and very easily X-Y-Z aligned. The primary reflector for the first run is being worked on as well. Tooling will be required for this in the future to make it more cost effective. Another "Anode and Cathode" Thermocouple-Embedded lamp is also being made at the moment since the last one had the Anode thermocouple lead vaporized from accidentally resting near the high voltage lead. I'm also performing final testing for the rain-proof exhaust vent. I've recently completed testing for the filtered rain-proof inake vent. I've also revised the motor-focus X-Y-Z alignment components and I'm very pleased with the outcome. It's simple, strong, precise, very easy to use, and provides a tensioned buffer for the lamp with hard hits.


----------



## Phil Ament

Hi again get-lit and I am glad that you may consider this feedback to be of some assistance. When you said the following I just wanted you to know that I had actually noticed it, if that helps at all.



get-lit said:


> I may add a slight spacing between the words. If you look closely, there is a horizontal beam of light through the logo coming from the "D" and it could pass through the space as a dash. Thanks for the thoughts on this.



In my previous post I had actually been trying to suggest that exact same thing, although maybe I had not worded it quite clearly enough.



Phil Ament said:


> Actually, after having another look at it I don't think that a space between the two words would look that bad at all, especially if that fine line that runs right through them is still a continuos one!




Phil Ament :wave:


----------



## get-lit

To be honest, I'm not much concerned about a name, it could be called the Mega Luxcrapper for all I care, I'm more focused on the design and construction.


----------



## FRITZHID

get-lit said:


> To be honest, ..... it could be called the Mega Luxcrapper for all I care.........



:laughing::hahaha:MegaLuxcrapper


----------



## get-lit

BVH's recent Megaray acquisition got me thinking about ellipsoidal-based lights and their incredible flood capability, and I wanted to see what it would take to achieve the same beam power as the current long FL parabolic design. Over the years I've seen comments and articles claiming that the parabolic has the most powerful beam for a given size optical system, and I could understand how due to it's efficient use of space. To be sure, I modeled a retro-reflected ellipsoidal-based optical system with equivalent beam power as the retro-reflected long-FL parabolic, and found this to be true. Although the ellipsoidal is somewhat narrower (9" vs 11"), it's overall size is much larger with about 3-4x the length, so I'm confident in proceeding with the current design with more limited flood use...


----------



## FRITZHID

nice work!


----------



## jmpaul320

i want one

edit: i would just like to also add that i appreciate all the work you are putting into this... wish i knew half of what you did! lol


----------



## Solscud007

Sorry for not reading everything here, But why not have the housing 3D printed? There are materials that are strong and non-metallic.


----------



## get-lit

Thanks! This will really help with a few small internal parts and bezel etc. Probably stick with layered composites for the housing for the most lightweight strength.


----------



## get-lit

Tremendous success today. Had a mandrel made by Phoenix Electroformed for the retro-reflector and received two retro-reflectors for testing. On the first test, the coating burned up in about a minute because I was in a hurry and I passed the airflow perpendicular to the lamp and it was not entering the retro-reflector effectively. For the second test with the other retro-reflector, I passed the air inline with the lamp, forcing it to enter directly into the retro-reflector just as the final housing would, and it ran for an hour just fine. Lux from the lamp increased by 31.6%. I expect that if the retro-reflector were to be coated with an additional enhanced coating, that figure would just about a 38% increase in lamp lux. This is ever so slightly under my predicted outcome but a tremendous success nonetheless. After all losses, this will place a net lumen output just over 40k within the beam, at 70 MCP within the entire diameter without any corona whatsoever.

I'm very much impressed with the quality of the retro-reflector made by Phoenix Electroformed. I provided a precise drawing and got it just as requested. I'm also very pleased with how well my design worked out. It's small, very light-weight single-piece without an intricate mounting method, no blocking of light to the primary reflector, re-useable, and very simple to align, and it solves the problem of stray light damaging your eyes. It's nice when things go just right. I'm extremely happy with this.


----------



## ma_sha1

I wonder if they will make a replica of Firefox III HID flashlight reflector (2.5") in SMO, how much is the cost range?
I wonder if I can convince Lip to organize a group buy, he should be able to get the reflector drawing from the mfg.


----------



## get-lit

It would not be a problem for Phoenix Electroformed. That's a bit larger than my retro-reflector, but mine had some extra things going on and some machining, so I couldn't estimate a cost for the mandrel. You may be able to send them a unit and have them get the dimensions. There's a good chance it's a common size that Phoenix already has.


----------



## BVH

Excellent report, Get! Glad to see it is going well!


----------



## BVH

Hi Get-Lit. Anything new?


----------



## get-lit

The design is complete but I have to get caught up with finances and other responsibilities for a while before I can handle the costs for production.


----------



## BVH

10-4!


----------



## BVH

Hi Get-Lit. Just checking in for any updates?

In your post #121, one shot shows the Anode located rearward relative to the front of the light. The other shows it forward. My understanding from the guys at A.R.C. is that the Anode should be favoring the "up" position during use of the light so as not to have the flame blow back against the thin Cathode. I understand why the airborn lights I am familiar with have the Anode in the back - because they are designed to be used pointing down - where the Anode is "up. Will your light have the Anode in front so that as the light is pointed between horizontal and upward, the flame will be directed towards it?


----------



## get-lit

Hi BVH. Having to wait for tax returns to proceed. Lamps for handheld use should really be chosen based on universal orientation, and the lamp I'm using has universal orientation.


----------



## shuen

Nice and so cool !


----------



## get-lit

While working on funds, I've made some slight improvements to the housing design according to recent feedback here and what I've wanted to try and implement before anyhow.

Also in the interim I'm needing to come up with a fairly complex solution for a cooling fan controller. One of the problems I've experienced is the lamp can be over cooled, because it's so much more efficient than a short-arc Xenon lamp. This makes it about impossible to keep the lamp at optimal operating temp while using a constant fan speed in different climates as you could with short-arc Xenon lamps. So for use in different climates, a fan speed controller with a thermistor probe is required. So far that's the easy part. There's schematics for simple little DIY controllers to do this, however there's several additional requirements that I'm not sure how to accomplish, and they all have to work in conjunction with each other.

When powering down, the lamp envelope heats up fast, and much hotter than when the lamp is on. I'm not sure why this happens, but there's a ton of heat energy released when the lamp powers off. Maybe it's the noble gasses releasing all their acquired heat energy as they drop back down to solid state from gas state. It does take minutes to acquire that energy, so it makes sense that there's a lot of stored energy to be released. It's a general precaution with short arc lamps and most other HID type lamps to run the fan for a minute after powering down.

So the second consideration for a fan controller is that it must run for a minute after powering down, which means not only do I need a timing circuit, but that the fan controller needs to be powered separate from the lamp on/off switch.

But if the fan is powered separate from the lamp... after the timer has shut the fan off, how would it know that the lamp is turned on again. So the fan controller needs a function to handle a separate "power on" input signal.

Maybe I could instead just use two separate controllers, both wired to the fan. The one that controls fan speed via temp probe could be powered by the lamp power switch. The other, powered separately, would monitor when the lamp is powered down and blast the fan at full power for a minute. This is what I'm looking for some direction with at the moment. Hmm, maybe just a large triggered capacitor that stores enough energy to power the fan for a minute, about 1/4 WH. Just a thought, but still looking.


----------



## langham

Just put the fan's switch in series with the light so that it has to be on in order for the light to be turned on and use a temperature sensing circuit as before mentioned that will allow the light to be automatically cooled. How about an led indicator that will tell you when the light no longer requires cooling? When it lights up simply turn off the main battery disconnect and save power. Anyone who gets one of these is not going to be an amateur. I would recommend the ellipsoidal design myself as it seems to be the best way to have a nice transition to spot and flood, but it will cause a sacrifice in lumen output, which seems like the opposite of what you are going for.


----------



## get-lit

I know manual fan control is how it's been done for decades in theaters but it just doesn't appeal to me. Today's newer stuff has automatic fan controllers. Even my boat has an automatic bilge blower with a five minute delayed shut off. Just a bit of extra work in the beginning is a fare trade for not having to deal with it anymore.

I'd given the optic method of choice extensive consideration over the years and I have no doubt I'll be sticking with the parabolic reflector because it packs the most beam punch for a given overall size. I describe in my first post on this page the reason for my choice over the ellipsoidal method for this project. I plan to go with either the ellipsoidal or short-FL parabolic for a more practical light with better flood pattern on a future project once this is completed.


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> So the second consideration for a fan controller is that it must run for a minute after powering down, which means not only do I need a timing circuit, but that the fan controller needs to be powered separate from the lamp on/off switch.
> 
> But if the fan is powered separate from the lamp... after the timer has shut the fan off, how would it know that the lamp is turned on again. So the fan controller needs a function to handle a separate "power on" input signal.



Use a diode from after the lamp power switch to the fan controller and then a transistor to directly supply the fan controller from the power. When the fan controller get power via the diode it will turn on the transistor, then it will have power until it turns off the transistor, even if the main switch is turned off.
The transistor could be controlled from the lamp temperature or from a timer.


----------



## get-lit

Thank you HKJ, this is very helpful. Let me see if I understand correctly by re-phrasing by how I understand this...

When the lamp is powered on, the signal from the lamp's power switch is also connected through a diode to a transistor that is also independently connected to the power supply, which then powers the fan controller even after the lamp power is turned off, and can be signaled to turn off via separate signal such as lamp temperature or a timer?

If this is correct, my question would then be... How would the shut off signal (temp or timer) then signal the transistor to turn off the fan controller "only after" the lamp is powered off and not at some point while the lamp is still on? 

Would the transistor turn off the fan controller only when "both" the lamp signal is off and the shut off signal (temp or timer) is triggered?

How would a timer initiate only after the lamp power is turned off?


----------



## langham

I think that would work for a temperature circuit, but if you wanted a timer then it would have to be initiated separately when you turn the power off.


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> When the lamp is powered on, the signal from the lamp's power switch is also connected through a diode to a transistor that is also independently connected to the power supply, which then powers the fan controller even after the lamp power is turned off, and can be signaled to turn off via separate signal such as lamp temperature or a timer?



That is basically correct.
A diode is a one way street, i.e. it allows power to flow from the lamp circuit to the temperature controller, but not the other way, this is important when we wish to power the temperature controller with the lamp off. The transistor is an electronic switch that is turned on as long as it gets a signal.
Letting the temperature control the transistor (From a separate minimum temperature limit), it can supply a signal, until the lamp is cool enough, then it removes the signal, the transistor will turn off and the power will be removed from the temperature controller.




get-lit said:


> If this is correct, my question would then be... How would the shut off signal (temp or timer) then signal the transistor to turn off the fan controller "only after" the lamp is powered off and not at some point while the lamp is still on?



As long as the power is on, it does not matter if the transistor is on or off, because the temperature controller get power via the diode.




get-lit said:


> Would the transistor turn off the fan controller only when "both" the lamp signal is off and the shut off signal (temp or timer) is triggered?



Again, the temperature controller is powered from the diode, when the lamp is on, only when the lamp is off does it need the transistor to the keep it power on.



get-lit said:


> How would a timer initiate only after the lamp power is turned off?



Using the power to the lamp as a trigger, a timer could easily be made with an extra diode an a capacitor.

There is a few practical details, like voltage, current, time period and does the temperature controller voltage need to turn off at once, or will it work if the voltage fades slowly, when these questions are answered the circuit can be made for less than $5.


----------



## get-lit

Greatly appreciated! Everything is 12v, including the lamp switch. There's several temperature based fan controller circuits I came across, here's one I'm looking at now...
http://electronics-diy.com/electronic_schematic.php?id=1036

There would need to be a way to initially adjust how much power to apply to the fan relative to temperature.

Due to the lamp's high ignition voltage, the temperature probe must be located away from the lamp, in the air flow past the lamp. Therefore, the fan must always be running in order to enure that heat from the lamp always reaches the temperature probe.

Turning off the fan after the lamp is powered down would probably be better based on a temperature baseline rather than timing.


----------



## HKJ

Something like this will work (It is supposed to work together with the thermostat you linked to):







The drawing is untested and might need a few additions, like a capacitor accross the supply and a resistor from pin 1 to 3 on the IC (This will give it hysteresis, i.e. it does not turn both on and off at the same temperature).
The potmeter is used to adjust the temperature.


----------



## get-lit

Thanks again HKJ. As a programmer I see these components as programming operators. I'd like to stay focused on the other components of the light and it would help if I could pay someone to build these fan controllers as simple little modules I could just wire in. I could wing $500 for a batch to make it worth someone's while. I don't know if you'd be up to this or know of someone who would.


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> Thanks again HKJ. As a programmer I see these components as programming operators. I'd like to stay focused on the other components of the light and it would help if I could pay someone to build these fan controllers as simple little modules I could just wire in. I could wing $500 for a batch to make it worth someone's while. I don't know if you'd be up to this or know of someone who would.



No and no.
As a programmer you could also use a small microcontroller for it.
Connect the microcontroller directly to the battery, use a ADC input to measure the temperature, use a digital input for lamp on/off and use a digital output for controlling the fan with pwm for speed control. If you want the possibility to adjust the temperature, use one more ADC input for a trimpot.


----------



## nealitc

Sounds like a perfect Arduino project, you could also use it to control other functions, indicate low or high input voltage, monitor current, indicate overtemp...


----------



## get-lit

Would it be much more difficult to make such a controller turn off the lamp in the event of over temp, which could be caused by a fan failure or filter clog? That would prevent a catastrophic event.


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> Would it be much more difficult to make such a controller turn off the lamp in the event of over temp, which could be caused by a fan failure or filter clog? That would prevent a catastrophic event.



Not much, the power switch must be replaced/supplemented with a electronic switch (this is just a power mos transistor).


----------



## get-lit

Perfect!

The Arduino looks interesting. Arduino Mini is tiny but takes only 9v. The Arduino Micro is larger but may be overkill.


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> Perfect!
> 
> The Arduino looks interesting. Arduino Mini is tiny but takes only 9v. The Arduino Micro is larger but may be overkill.



It is not a problem to change 12V to 9V as long as the current is below 1A, look for a chip called 7809 (For 9V) or 7805 (For 5 volt).


----------



## get-lit

Wow those chips are incredibly small for changing voltage. May need one of those in case I end up going with a lamp focus gear motor with lower voltage. Most all in the size I need are 6v and very rarely 12v.

Also found the Arduino Pro Mini, which is also very small and operates at 12v. 1.3" x .7" and around 3 grams. This just may be the one.


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> Wow those chips are incredibly small for changing voltage. May need one of those in case I end up going with a lamp focus gear motor with lower voltage. Most all in the size I need are 6v and very rarely 12v.
> 
> Also found the Arduino Pro Mini, which is also very small and operates at 12v. This just may be the one.



The chips might be small*, but if they are going to work drop a couple of volts at 1A they need a large heatsink!
*As chips goes, they are not really small.


----------



## langham

You may need to attach a heatsink if you want to put an excessive amount of current through it.


----------



## get-lit

The focus motor is very tiny, will end up being either be 700mA or 1600mA, and I have little choice but to go with a 6v motor with 12v power. There's good forced airflow at the location where the chip would be, any particular heat sink I should be looking at?


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> The focus motor is very tiny, will end up being either be 700mA or 1600mA, and I have little choice but to go with a 6v motor with 12v power. There's good forced airflow at the location where the chip would be, any particular heat sink I should be looking at?



Not really, just something in aluminium where the regulator can be mounted on with good thermal contact (Note: The back of the regulator is connect to the 0 volt pin). You can use a 3mm screw or get a special clip for mounting it.
The 7805/7806/7809 etc. (Last digit is voltage out) can take up to 125 degrees on the inside. Driving the 0.7A motor from 13 volt, it will have to handle 5 watt, that means that the heatsink must keep the outside of the regulator below 100 degrees.

Edit:
It is best for electronic components to stay as cool as possible, i.e. designing for 80 degrees is much better than designing for 100 degrees outside temperature.


----------



## get-lit

Under 100°F? This would need to be capable of operating in 100°F+ weather (i.e. AZ summer nights).


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> Under 100°F? This would need to be capable of operating in 100°F+ weather (i.e. AZ summer nights).



Sorry, I calculate in *Celsius.

*125 Celcius -> 257 Farnheit
100 Celcius -> 212 Farnheit
80 Celcius -> 176 Farnheit


----------



## get-lit

Yep just saw that in the datasheets. Thanks HKJ.


----------



## langham

I wasn't saying you should use a fan cooled heatsink just thermally mounted aluminum.


----------



## get-lit

Yes I know. I mentioned that it would be within the air flow to get a more accurate recommendation for a suitable heat sink.


----------



## get-lit

Some revisions to the housing... Bottom rear now angled and has rubber lining. Increased internal airflow space and filter surface area for less resistance and improved all-weather use. Reflector reduced to 10.5" from 11" for increased usability with just 6% CP loss. Bezel now stainless steel to reduce bezel diameter. Total bezel diameter now only 11" instead of 12". The front may look small, but due to the design, it's still double the CP of a standard design while being nearly half as large.

Edit: I've re-uploaded the images with increased radii of the corners of the housing for broader distribution of stress, basically makes the walls stronger.








Tail Stand...





Front Bezel...





MaxaBeam to scale for size reference...


----------



## get-lit

I've had a hard time locating a suitable rocker switch because I need one that is waterproof, small, very low profile, and has low "behind panel" depth. It also has to be DPDT wired (to reverse the motor polarity) and have "momentary-off-momentary" switching action. There's only two units out there that meet this criteria, but they are pricey.

One of them is actually a proportional rocker switch that would output 0 to 5v to the focus motor depending upon how far the switch is pressed in either direction. It would be a nice feature to control the speed of the motor, problem is the part costs $100. Still waiting for cost on the less expensive non-proportional unit.

There are also some less expensive SPDT units out there that could work, but it would be more work because I'd have to integrate them with the Arduino board to control the reverse polarity to the motor.

What I'd really like to do is go with a 4-way "navigation" switch like the Maxabeam, where left and right would control strobe and low power modes, with logic managed by the Arduino board. It's a great solution for usability and would eliminate the need for separate switches for these. The problem is the only one that is waterproof is much too big, and it's $100 as well. There are plenty of surface mount 4-way navigation switches out there that are not waterproof, and I'd like to know if there's a way to make them waterproof.

I could also use surface mount tactile buttons, which wouldn't be as clean as the single button, and again waterproofing is a concern.

Also, I've gotten recommendation to keep cost down. Having *very* little money myself, I'm doing everything I can to make this inexpensive, but it's difficult when I can only make a few at a time, low runs and one-offs of each part makes each part plus shipping cost a lot more than if high quantities could be bought. There's also really high initial tooling and equipment costs etc which I don't expect to recoup. Specialized parts, such as mil-spec waterproof connectors and switches, for the kind of reliability and safety I expect with this kind of project also cost more. These will also take a lot of time to individually build because there's post machining and assembly steps which I've been taking extra time to minimize in the development stage.


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> There are also some less expensive SPDT units out there that could work, but it would be more work because I'd have to integrate them with the Arduino board to control the reverse polarity to the motor.



It is easy to control a motor from Arduino, you just uses something like "L298N Dual H Bridge IC Stepper Motor Driver Controller Board Module for Arduino"


----------



## get-lit

The focus motor is just simple 6v DC, driven directly by DC power, reverse polarity to reverse the motor.

Edit... The Baby Orangutan B-328 Controller is similar to the Arduino, but includes a small motor controller. I may consider going with this if a controller is needed for the focus motor.


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> The focus motor is just simple 6v DC, driven directly by DC power, reverse polarity to reverse the motor.



All L298 is designed to drive that kind of motors, you can use pwm to reduce the motor speed.


----------



## get-lit

The L298 board looks to be made for much larger motors. I'm interested in the Baby Orangutan B-328 Controller because it's half the size and it's a fully programmable controller and motor controller all in one.

I'd really like to know if there's a way to make waterproof a 4-way navigation button. I see that Peak Beam uses that really large $100 mil-spec waterproof navigation button in their militarized version of the MaxaBeam, mounted in a control box wired separate from the light housing, but that won't do for this.


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> The L298 board looks to be made for much larger motors. I'm interested in the Baby Orangutan B-328 Controller because it's half the size and it's a fully programmable controller and motor controller all in one.



Yes, the L298 can handle larger motors.



get-lit said:


> I'd really like to know if there's a way to make waterproof a 4-way navigation button. I see that Peak Beam uses that really large $100 mil-spec waterproof navigation button in their militarized version of the MaxaBeam, mounted in a control box wired separate from the light housing, but that won't do for this.



One idea for a waterproof controller is a touch controller, but i could not find some board with it. The nice think about this type of controller/sensor is that you mount the sensor inside the box and only need some markings on the outside.
You can see a demo here of one: http://www.semtech.com/touch-interface/capacitive-touch-controllers/sx8638/


----------



## get-lit

Wow. Just watched the demo video. Now that is cool! Looks like finger positioning could control motor speed, if set up right.

...Looking at the documentation, integrating this with a controller looks to be a project in of itself. Might have to pass on this if this is to get done soon.


----------



## BVH

Get-lit, if you need some simple to moderately complex lathe and/or mill work done, I would be happy to contribute my time and machinery to the cause, both for prototyping and production. Can't get much cheaper than free!


----------



## get-lit

Thank you BVH. I'll be contacting you. I've had offers to help with prototyping but I'd like to have many of each part made, not only so that it's cost and time effective to make more, but also so that I don't become satisfied playing with the first completed light and stall making more for other people. So I'm going at this with an all out approach after becoming satisfied that I've arrived at a design as evolved as I could conceive of.


----------



## BVH

Get-lit, with the latest reflector change and current lamp selection, what are the CP and Lumen numbers and how will the NS compare with the SX16? Are there any parts I could get started on now? I have a ton of time on my hands and a couple of clean machines that want to get dirty. I have some 316 Stainless bar stock up to 1", misc brass and stressproof up to 1.25" and lots of Alum bar and thick wall tube up to 2.5". Even have some copper bar at 1.5".

Would be good to know what materials I might be working with to ensure I have the correct inserts for cutting the different metals/plastics.


----------



## get-lit

Now coming up with 63MCP with 45K lumen within the beam (not just OTF but within the beam), which is 25% more beam lumen and double the CP of the SX-16. Keep in mind, the last actual beamshot posted was just over 30MCP with marginally less lumen in the beam, and the reflector housing was more than twice the size and weight of the current design.

Waiting on a quote for the reflector. I obtained an insanely low quote for having aluminum molds CNC machined for the housing, so once the funds arrive, I'll be pushing ahead with these. I'm finding that the rest of the small parts require only a drill press and sliding vice, which I can do here. The last remaining major item is finding a source to fabricate the stainless steel front bezel... from flat sheet, it needs two precision folds and then rolled to the bezel diameter. Other minor items are high-temp UV/ozone resistant custom cut gaskets, and custom cut tempered glass. There's also a very complex internal component that will require a separate mold, and a couple simple flat components. Other than that, there's post-machining that needs done on the housing once it's assembled, particularly the vent holes, rectangular hole for the focus button, and bottom access panel opening. These cuts will require some sort of a jig which I don't have any experience with.

I keep finding that pricing would be much less if I could do a lot of these, because the parts cost so much less when in bulk. For instance, I just got a quote on the focus motor buttons, they are half the cost if you spend a grand. For the proportional wheel button at $90 retail, that would be $45 savings for each unit right there. Of course that's not a requirement, but quite a nifty function.

*Edit:* BVH, there is something I'll be handing over to you... My drill press is not sturdy enough and does not have enough travel to drill precisely centered 3mm diameter holes into the end of threaded rod, for inserting the focus motor shafts. If you don't mind doing a lot of them, I'll send the rod and I also have a bag of high grade 3mm drill bits.

Also, once I receive some Teflon tube, I will know if it needs reamed with a spiral flute reamer. It may or may not need it. The tube is almost 6" long and might need reamed 1-7/8" deep, and my drill press does not have enough travel for that.


----------



## BVH

Both work items you describe sound as though they might be best done in my lathe using the tail stock, German quality Albrecht drill chuck and possibly a 3mm endmill - as opposed to a drill bit. The drill bits all move minutely, especially when starting whereas when I use endmills, they are rigid enough that I cannot see any movement and they leave a flat bottom instead of a tapered bottom. Of course, if this is "splitting hairs", then I can simply use a ultra-rigid starter/centering drill to establish center and then use the 3mm drill bit to finish.

Do you have the reamer or shall I pick one up if it turns out the work is needed?

I'm just anxious to do something!


----------



## get-lit

I know the feeling. I'm not sure if the tubes need reamed as of yet. Once I receive them I will know. If they do, I'll have the reamer bit sent to you. As far as the 3mm holes in the threaded rods, I did one successfully but it was a PITA because I had to work with a drill press without enough travel for the length of the threaded rod, even though I'm only drilling a short distance into it. What I did was drill and tap a hole into an aluminum block to hold the threaded rod, and used a hole punch to keep the drill bit from wandering. It worked great, centered and drilled fine, except that the weight of the aluminum block on my cheap drill press caused the platform to angle slightly, so the threaded rod has a bit of lateral movement when the motor spins, not enough to be an issue at all, but for the amount of effort I put into getting it right with what I had, I expected better. PM your address, and I'll have the threaded rods sent out and I'll send some drill bits as well. They work fine when I inserted them into the chuck all the way minus the small length to drill.


----------



## Patriot

Man, this is the coolest mega-spotlight project I've ever followed on CPF. I'm fascinated with the "know-how" you guys posses!

I can't wait until these are available!


----------



## get-lit

Thanks Patriot!

I just realized a great solution to eliminate the need to cut the openings into the housing after the mold. I'd use what are called side actions, in which sliding cams would fit into the mold before molding, and then slide out before part ejection to allow for side cut outs. The part would end up stronger, with clean smooth finishes on the inside wall of the cavities, without cutting. This will work for the aperture opening, the access panel opening, and the square opening for the focus button.

Also for the air inlet openings, I'd just used raised sections in the mold to fill the space, and then work around it when molding, slide the finished part up and out and the holes will be there with cleaner, stronger surfaces than cutting them out.


----------



## BVH

I can feel the group excitement building!! I agree Paul, this is the most exciting thread of CPF! A NightSun in your hand!


----------



## Parker VH

I may have to sell a kidney when this comes out for sale


----------



## Juggernaut

Parker VH said:


> I may have to sell a kidney when this comes out for sale


OR BOTH! :thumbsup:


----------



## get-lit

Parker VH said:


> I may have to sell a kidney when this comes out for sale




Now Kidney Powered!


----------



## langham

Between this and this http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...m-One-of-a-Kind-Titanium-35-50-watt-HID-Light. I am glad that my wife keeps at least a little attention on the bank account.


----------



## get-lit

Need some opinions/input regarding the motor focus speed... I'll probably offer the choice between a fixed speed and the more expensive adjustable speed via proportional thumb wheel switch. For the fixed speed, how fast do you think the motor should focus the beam from tight spot to 30° flood? The choices are either somewhat fast or slow, .64 seconds or 1.92 seconds :thinking: This *online stopwatch* can help..


----------



## BVH

I will suggest it be on the slow side based on the difficulty I have really, really zeroing in the focus on my Maxabeam. Quite frankly, on the MB, I'd rather have a manual focus than the electric at the speed it's at. I will definitely opt for the proportional thumb wheel if you offer it. I'll time the MB focus stop to stop later on today and post it but just off the top of my head, I'd think 4 to 5 seconds might be a good speed.


----------



## Parker VH

BVH said:


> I will suggest it be on the slow side based on the difficulty I have really, really zeroing in the focus on my Maxabeam. Quite frankly, on the MB, I'd rather have a manual focus than the electric at the speed it's at. I will definitely opt for the proportional thumb wheel if you offer it. I'll time the MB focus stop to stop later on today and post it but just off the top of my head, I'd think 4 to 5 seconds might be a good speed.


I agree 100%


----------



## get-lit

Thank you for the feedback, but keep in mind, there will be *"end stop" position adjustment*, so that the focus motor *always stops at the optimal focus position* without having to toggle back and forth whatsoever. So what speed would you prefer with this in mind?


----------



## Parker VH

I would say around 3 seconds would be good. Not critical to me though.


----------



## BVH

One other point I should make about the MB electric focus is that its a high travel/lots of movement switch and there always seems to be some lag time involved and this adds to the difficulty. It does have the position memory so once you find and set focus, it will go there again with a constant push. I would agree with Parker, 3 seconds for the non-thumb wheel I think would be fine. The thumb wheel sounds fantastic!


----------



## get-lit

Ok will do 3 seconds for the fixed speed. Thanks.

I realized a PID function could be used with a programmable fan controller, and there's working code available. PID is sort of an auto-learn function for maintaining constant temp. For instance, when the temp needs cooled, the fan ramps up to begin cooling and then smooths out before reaching the target temp without overshooting or undershooting it.

I've been trying to figure out the best way to place the temp probe. It should to be close to the lamp, but high ignition voltage anywhere near the lamp would fry the probe. There's absolutely no way to locate the probe in the path of the air flow after the lamp, and if I were to place it before the lamp, the sensor would measure the incoming cool air flow that hadn't yet reached the lamp. Also, direct light intensity from the lamp would throw the sensor off. These kinds of issues give me headaches and I end up half awake all night, and then something comes to me just as I'm fortunate enough to almost fall asleep.

I found an IR temp sensor that would allow the sensor to be placed well inside the electronics housing, away from the heat and light. Mounted to the focus assembly, it would move with the lamp, and use a narrow FOV from a distance to get consistent lamp temp. The first thing to go in an overheat condition would be the retro-reflector, so I'd aim the sensor FOV directly at the retro-reflector where the heat primarily accumulates.


----------



## BVH

This is going to be a technical work of art. I just love reading your thought processes and solutions!


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> I realized a PID function could be used with a programmable fan controller, and there's working code available. PID is sort of an auto-learn function for maintaining constant temp. For instance, when the temp needs cooled, the fan ramps up to begin cooling and then smooths out before reaching the target temp without overshooting or undershooting it.



PID by itself does not contain any "auto-learn" function but requires configuration of a couple of factors, before it will do a good regulation. But there might be implementations that can do some sort of "auto-learn".


----------



## get-lit

I've worked with some PID back when I was into UAV flight controllers. PID determines how to handle current variation based upon the accumulation of past variation due to Integral function ("I" in PID), so in that sense I've seen it be called somewhat of a learning process so to speak, but I'm aware it's not fully self-learning as the function needs to be manually tuned first. I haven't had much time to look into PID for this yet, but I did a real quick search for PID fan controllers and there was lots of exciting info and videos showing successful PID fan control implementation with the Arduino boards, with source code, although I was considering the Orangutan as well.


----------



## HKJ

Very short PID has 3 factors:
*P*roduct: Simple proportional regulation, output signal depends directly on error.
*I*ntegration: Summation over time, output signal depends on error over time. This factor is used to eliminate errors due to changed loads.
*D*ifferentiation: Changes, output signal due to fast changes in error. This factor is used to get fast reaction to changes. Turns this up to high and you get large overshoot and even oscillation.
(Error is difference between required output and actual output).


----------



## get-lit

Thanks HKJ. Merry Christmas in Denmark, and others everywhere.

I finally found the solution I've been looking for forever... A *waterproof 5-way navigation button!* And it's illuminated with legends! Center button would be power, left would be strobe, right would be dim, up and down would be focus. I can use this and the fan controller to also control the safety features, and the focus motor. I could program the focus motor with progressive movement, where it starts slow and speeds up the longer the focus button is held down! This would be most uncluttered way to handle all of the functions, both outside with a single, easy access panel, and on the inside with wiring.


----------



## Parker VH

get-lit said:


> Thanks HKJ. Merry Christmas in Denmark, and others everywhere.
> 
> I finally found the solution I've been looking for forever... A *waterproof 5-way navigation button!* And it's illuminated with legends! Center button would be power, left would be strobe, right would be dim, up and down would be focus. I can use this and the fan controller to also control the safety features, and the focus motor. I could program the focus motor with progressive movement, where it starts slow and speeds up the longer the focus button is held down! This would be most uncluttered way to handle all of the functions, both outside with a single, easy access panel, and on the inside with wiring.



Sounds perfect!


----------



## get-lit

Found another solution I think I may actually prefer more. I don't want to seem like I'm beating a dead horse with this whole button/user interface thing, but it's the only finishing touch that I have left and I don't want to later regret this decision. What I found is a single militarized waterproof 5-Way mini switch. What I like about this instead of the separate buttons is this... With the separate buttons you have to either look or feel around to know which button you want to press among the others. For instance, when focusing back and forth, your thumb has to physically skip the power button each time to feel for the opposite focus button. But with a single button, you wouldn't have to know which button to press, just press the only button in the direction you want. Nothing else would change, would still integrate Progressive focus control.


----------



## Parker VH

get-lit said:


> Found another solution I think I may actually prefer more. I don't want to seem like I'm beating a dead horse with this whole button/user interface thing, but it's the only finishing touch that I have left and I don't want to later regret this decision. What I found is a single militarized waterproof 5-Way mini switch. What I like about this instead of the separate buttons is this... With the separate buttons you have to either look or feel around to know which button you want to press among the others. For instance, when focusing back and forth, your thumb has to physically skip the power button each time to feel for the opposite focus button. But with a single button, you wouldn't have to know which button to press, just press the only button in the direction you want. Nothing else would change, would still integrate Progressive focus control.



Ohhh, I missed that in the other description as I thought that one had those features similar to the Maxa Beam type toggle switch. This one sounds like what I would want.


----------



## get-lit

I was finding that the air filter retainer would either have to be somewhat in the way of the air flow or not as robust as I'd prefer, and I ended up not liking the method of changing the filter anyhow. Esthetically, the squared off back began to bother me as well. Also, a new fan just came out that is twice as efficient for pressure than any others I've seen. Having a high pressure fan is important for operating in high wind or on a boat etc. The new fan consumes twice the power and takes up twice the internal volume, but produces 4 times the pressure. Since it consumes more internal volume, and more power that requires a larger DC converter, I had to make the housing an 1.1" longer, but the construction is more robust now, and taking off the air filter for cleaning is as easy as slipping it off from around the outer housing.

The front exhaust port is now made of ceramic to withstand the high temp at that point. Metal can not be used because it would conduct the 50kv ignition and that would be a problem if touched. Ceramic keeps ingress protection in check (exhaust machining not present in the drawing).

Another big thing some of you might like is the entire housing structure will now be molded with inner layers of Kevlar and outer layers of Carbon Fiber. Kevlar was chosen for electrical isolation. Although the carbon fiber finish looks mean, I'm actually opting for it for added lightness, strength and rigidity, water creep resistance, and EMI isolation (carbon fiber finish not shown in the drawing).

Overall I'm very pleased, with the single multi-function button, simple filter maintenance and straighter lines in the design.

I also could do firmware updates if needed. For instance, at some point I may create a button sequence to program the controller to enable or disable the progressive motor function on the fly.


----------



## BVH

What a great combo of great materials! Have you chosen a final Carbon Fiber finish? The woven look, non-woven, satin, gloss?


----------



## get-lit

Must be woven, no choice there, but probably gloss.

Edit: Overall length is now 15.5" from aperture to back, not including front exhaust, which is still a bit shorter than the Thor.

Much Later Edit: Narrowed the depth of the bezel, overall length now 14.9" from aperture to back.


----------



## BVH

That's great! I'm partial to woven gloss!


----------



## get-lit

I could also apply black resin for the base coat for those whom prefer gloss black, but I like gloss woven carbon myself.

I sent 19 bits out yesterday morning, not sure how long it would take to get there, but I'll be juggling several other things for a little while. Once I receive the new fan and DC converter, I'll have to test the new design of the air intake baffle . Fans are very sensitive to flow resistance before the fan, and the air filter surface area and ppi (pore per inch) need to be optimized for the degree of filtration needed versus flow resistance for this fan. Also need to optimize for air/water separation. I use flow and resistance formulas to arrive at the intake design, but must always do a real world test before committing to CNC.


----------



## BVH

I'd like to drill 4 or 5 then mail off to you so you can confirm they're ok. I'd say possibly tomorrow if Priority USPS or Saturday.


----------



## get-lit

Rendered the housing with molded gloss carbon fiber surface, with bezel molded in gloss red surface, logo and decals molded into housing surface...











...*Wallpaper Size*


----------



## Parker VH

My mouth is watering!


----------



## Patriot

Wow! That's so neat!


----------



## get-lit

With over 400 design variations on file, the final design has come a long way since the very first design from way back when... much smaller and balanced now, and with double the CP are just a few improvements since then.


----------



## Davekan

*Now*, *that's what I'm talking about* *...

Dave*


----------



## get-lit

Drawings re-uploaded, minor updates. Will also be going 1/4" larger on the diameter, while still being a manageable size with 5% more power, it a better point of diminishing returns here.


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> ........ Will also be going 1/4" larger on the diameter, while still being a manageable size with 5% more power, it a better point of diminishing returns here.



YES!! MORE power is MORE better!


----------



## get-lit

LOL! Thanks BVH, that's easy to say from someone that had a 60" carbon arc! I want this to be something that won't be awkward to carry around.

I've re-uploaded the drawings, this time with 11.25" total diameter from 11", for an additional 4.6% more power. Anything larger ventures into awkward size territory, and if I were to make the total diameter 11.5", the power gain for that additional 1/4" is adds only another 2.3%, which is diminished from the 4.6% when going from 11" to 11.25". I'm happy 11.25".


----------



## Lips

Just had a hospital helicopter go over the house with his spotlight on for landing, thought about a Nightsword hanging out the door 


Wondering are you going for the commercial market (patents) or just flashaholics like in the beginning? The light looks fantastic, hope you license or sell it and make some money! I have a friend developing a product and going thru patent process, he's had a hard time without proper funding. He got investors involved and they are constantly calling pushing for results...

Any idea of selling cost range in mind yet? Curious what expertise background you have to design such a light.

Keep Plugging!


----------



## get-lit

Great questions... Although my primary goal is to get these in the hands of myself and fellow CPFers, there are some things I may consider patenting for later. I'll be offering them at my cost and I'm doing my best to keep it down, but this is not designed to be cost effective because I'm not appealing to any commercial market, so I'm not compromising anything for cost. For instance I could easily save money by compromising some weight and bulk for less expensive materials than carbon fiber and Kevlar, or I could choose 18-8 stainless steel for the internal metal components because they won't get wet, but I want this to be something that truly lasts even in hot and humid conditions, so I'm using all 316. I could use standard type connectors, wires, and switch, DC converter, etc, but I'm going with mil-spec. These material and component choices cost double, and many of them double again since I'm not buying in mass quantity I have to pay retail. I could also go with a low grade reflector that's less reflective, less accurate, and less durable and save a ton of money. When I consider the hard cost of the major components, the lamp and ballast, and reflector alone, this is already stupid expensive, so I feel that not compromising on the other components and materials is a marginal increase relative to those hard costs.

I have no idea on total cost as of yet because I'm waiting for the quote for the primary reflector, I don't know how much carbon fiber and Kevlar material I'll be consuming, and I don't yet know the tooling costs for producing the bezel and internal mounts, ducting, and EDPM gaskets, ceramic exhaust, among a some other components. I wish I could give a figure but at this point I don't know.

I'm very thankful to BVH for his free help, I'm putting it to use and that savings goes directly to others.

As far as my background, I'm a programmer by trade going on 18 years. I'm basically driven to thoroughly understand how things work. The more complex and challenging, the more interested I become. My work as a programmer conditioned me to use a methodical functional approach to accomplishing things which I initially have no idea how to. I've developed a knack for unraveling tasks with that approach, where I'd explore what needs to be done to accomplish something and all of the possible solutions and make pragmatic choices based strictly upon calculable considerations.

This was supposed to be done many years ago, I actually had an interest in the early 90's and began diving into it into in the later 90's, but I kept finding myself in over my head and refused to not give up and kept going at it. Through the process, I've learned and applied things I never even realized existed until I needed to know them, including material properties such as tensile, compressive, impact, and modulus of strengths and elasticities.. thermal expansion, thermal resistance and conductance, electrical resistance and conductance, breakdown voltage of materials and air relative to temperature, pressure, and humidity... material light reflectance and transmittance relative to incident angle and wavelength... flow, pressure, surface friction, screw design standards, ozone resistance, UV resistance, temperature resistance, electromagnetic emission and its absorption, reflectance, interference... ingress protection standards, mil-spec standards, UL standards, the light spectrum and human sensitivity to it, air filter materials, and the micron filtering benefit of pores per inch and material thickness versus air flow resistance, short arc lamp design and construction, shot arc luminous intensity profiles and luminous distribution profiles, short arc ballast design and construction principals, product design and construction, and molding and fabrication processes.

When it comes to optics alone, I had to thoroughly understand the geometry of the beam, from the light source all the way through to the illuminated object at distance. In order to make calculable optic design decisions, there were no useful tools available, so I developed the beam calculator from the ground up. It all took years of regular headache sessions. I eventually realized that when I'd get frustrated and thought I'd never understand something or figure out a solution, patience was always the answer. Everything always worked itself out if I just relaxed and gave it time.


----------



## BVH

Get lit, thanks for all the good info above. No bits yesterday so maybe Monday.


----------



## get-lit

Ya I sent them regular postage, plus it's the holidays.


----------



## BVH

Well, to warm up my equipment for its' Nightsword efforts, I used the lathe and mill yesterday and today on a funky project but I think the final "product" will perform quite well. Once done, I'll start one of my usual threads on it.


----------



## Patriot

Thanks Get-lit for sharing your passion with us. Thanks BVH for volunteering your skills to help push the project forward. It's really neat to be able to follow this amazing collaboration of ingenuity and technology. Nothing like this has every existed before!


----------



## get-lit

Happy New Year! I've narrowed the depth of the bezel considerably to save weight and bring the heavy lens closer to the center of gravity. The tip of the thumb is literally just 2-1/4" from the lens, and the lens is also centered on the lamp focal point. This thing could not possibly get any more compact. The housing is taking on the true form of the long FL reflector within it. The lamp anode actually extends all of the way to the front end of the exhaust vent, which is why the vent must be so long. Drawings updated. And thanks guys for the support!

Edit.. The compromise to this more compact configuration is that the middle section of the focus range will have a portion of spill light, in which the lamp source could be visible from the side forward of the light. Many lights do this, but it's not something you'd want to look at, so it will have to be something to be aware of halfway through the focus range.


----------



## get-lit

In *BVH's recent post*, he realized a phenomenon of the beam which he questioned, and it reminded me of a topic I wanted to discuss that is very important because few people realize that candlepower alone does not determine overall beam power in the air nor on target.

Imagine if you will, a highly collimated tiny amount of light, say for instance a 5mw laser so collimated it produces 100 MCP (100 Million Candle Power). Let's also say you have a light that's 20 MCP with 10,000 Lumen in the beam. Say that 5mw laser is a green laser at 555nm (the maximum possible luminous efficacy) seen as 3.415 Lumen. Even though that 5mw laser is producing 5 times the light intensity of the 20 MCP light, the 5mw laser beam will not be visible from as far away as the 20 MCP light with 10,000 lumen. Also, the 20 MCP 10,000 lumen light will reflect a visible spot out to a much greater distance.

This "beam power" affect is the combined affects of beam intensity and amount of lumen within the beam. There is no term for this affect, and so for my own use I just call it "beam power" comprising a unit of "Lux Lumen". I've included this value in the *beam calculator* for making improvements to the optic design based upon this value rather than solely upon candlepower.

Now we're half way there. Let's make another comparison to realize the other half. Let's now say we have that same 20 MCP 10,000 Lumen light coming from a long focal length reflector in which the vast majority of the light within the beam is uniformly concentrated at 20 MCP. The uniform concentration within the beam coming from the long focal length reflector is due to the distance from the light source to reflector surface being nearly equal from every angle emanating from the source to the reflector surface.

Let's now compare that light to another 10,000 lumen light but having even more candlepower, say 25 MCP. But what if that light is coming from a short focal length reflector? Well, the distance from the light source to reflector surface would greatly graduate over the angles emanating from the source to the reflector surface, with very short distances closer to the rear of the reflector, and very long distances closer to the front of the reflector. This highly graduated distance from source to reflector produces a beam of highly graduated intensity, from a highly concentrated small spot fanning out to a large dim flood. This is because the very large "source to reflector distances" of the small portion of light toward the front of the reflector produce a small amount of highly collimated light, and the very short "source to reflector distances" of the rest of light behind the front of the reflector produces a large amount of barely collimated light.

So how does this affect how we see the beam in the air and how we see the reflected light at a distance? The combined affects of intensity and lumen directly determine this affect. Because only a small portion of the 10,000 lumen of the short FL light is actually concentrated at 25 MCP, and because the vast majority of the 10,000 lumen of the long FL light is concentrated at 20 MCP, the lessor candlepower light would actually produce a more visible beam in the air, as well as a more visible spot at distance.

Since the combined affects of intensity and lumen directly determine the visibility of the beam and reflected light at distance, neither just a lot of lumen alone nor just a lot of candlepower alone will produce a highly visible beam from a distance. The combined affect of this beam power is determined by simply by multiplying the lumen within the beam by the intensity of that lumen. But that only works if all of the lumen within the beam is uniformly concentrated. A graduated beam would need to be sliced into circular portions from the center out, the amount of lumen within each portion is multiplied by the Lux of that portion. The multiplied values of all the portions are summed to a total beam power value. The more portions, the more accurate the calculation.

Below are two beams generated with the beam calculator. The light sources and reflectors vary among them to produce the two different beams that exactly match our examples. One beam from a short FL reflector having 25 MCP and 10,000 lumen in the beam, and the other having just 20 MCP with also 10,000 lumen in the beam while having actually 26.27% more beam power. You can see how the graduations of the beam profiles differ. I also use LuxLumen as the unit for beam power, as it's simply the sum of the beam's graduated portions' Lux times lumen.

Since the "Lux Lumen" varies according to the distance at which the intensity is measured, Lux Lumen is relative to distance. A stand-alone unit of beam power would be evaluated as the "Candlepower Lumen". I'll probably incorporate that into the beam calculator as well, but since the calculations for the two beams below were taken at 3280 ft, nearly 1 km, the "Lux Lumen" in this case is equivalent to "Candlepower Lumen". Edit: I actually should have calculated at 3280.839895 feet (1 km) for this to be fully equivalent, and the calculated "Lux" and "Candlepower" would match exactly as well as the "Lux Lumen" and "Candlepower Lumen".

Please note that the highlighted portions generated by the beam calculator are not the portions used for calculation, they are simply highlight 5 incremental portions to make it easy to see and compare the intensity profile of the beam. The beam calculator actually uses 180 increments to calculate beam power. Also, please excuse me when I should be using the term gradated in replace of graduated, it's just habit.

*(The following beam profile is **NOT** the Nightsword, it's an example application of beam power)*












Even though the center of the 2nd beam appears brighter, it's not. This is due to the beam power affect in which there is more amount of high intensity lumen in the 2nd beam. Among these two images, the 2nd beam's intensity is actually generated relative to the slightly more intense beam center of the 1st beam to compare as if they were both on at the same time.

Edit... I think a better name for this would be net illuminance because it's actually the aggregate sum of each lumen's illuminace within the beam.


----------



## Davekan

This is very interesting, even though the light gather is much worse in the second case. The beam is much better in the lower cp longer fl version. 

Dave


----------



## get-lit

Dave, we're not comparing lights with the same light source. Two different sources and reflectors were used to make the comparison to show that, irrelevant of how the beam is generated, be it a searchlight or even a laser, the power of the beam we see is actually due to the "net illuminance" of each lumen within the beam rather than peak illuminance or candlepower. I've added to the post that a better name for this phenomenon would be "net illuminance".

If the same sources were used, the total beam power or "net illuminance" would be exactly the same for lights of the same aperture diameter, with minimal variations based primarily upon how each optimizes the illuminance profile and shape of the light source, and minimizes losses due to the the vertex hole diameter. Here's a comparison of two beams from the same source and aperture diameter, the beam power or net illuminance is the same...

*(The following beam profile is **NOT** the Nightsword, it's an example application of beam power)*


----------



## BVH

Get lit you have a great way of making a difficult technical subject much easier for us non-experts to understand. I read slow and repeated certain lines but I have a pretty good grasp of what your saying. And I can easily and emphatically say, now that I've seen the ACR600 and Maxabeams side-by-side beams and spots on a target, that I highly prefer the light product from a long focal length reflector. I guess it more resembles a laser beam which I have always found very impressive. Thank you for taking the time, as you frequently do, to create your technical posts!


----------



## Davekan

Thanks for the clarification. I have to agree with BVH on this. A sharp cut off does look way better. 

Dave


----------



## get-lit

Ok guys, I need some more feedback. I can make a minor tweak in the design to optimize for one of the following...






Edit.. Spacing the below image from that of above to describe that the image below and left is the beam profile for the light on the left above optimized for beam power or net illuminance,
and the image below right is the beam profile for the the light on the right above optimized for max lumen output.





Which do you prefer?


----------



## BVH

I need to go back and re-re-read your info. Done!

Will the "Optimize Net Lumen" (ONL) option provide more beam visibility and more target visibility? Is the "ONL" option using a longer focal length reflector and does it produce a beam which is more uniformly concentrated. ?


New ?. In the lower model pic in post 221, would the spot be about 72' wide at the 3280' range? I based this on 8000 inches = 666 feet and the beam spot is 1" wide and the field of view pic is about 9.25" wide. So 666 / 9.25?


----------



## get-lit

The beam profiles in posts 219 and 221 are not of the NS. They are simply examples to illustrate the phenomenon of beam power as a combined affect of candlepower and amount of lumen in the beam. Do not use those profiles for estimations regarding NS.

However, in my last post #224, the NS light on the left is optimized for "net illuminance" or overall beam intensity, beam power, or whatever we want to use to identify what it is that makes the beam and light on target more visible. It has a slightly longer FL than the NS on the right, and the beam has 6% more "net illuminance" so it will be 6% more intense "overall" but with 8.9% less lumen in the beam.

The best way to visualize the affect this has on the beam is to look at the two side-by-side beam profiles in the 2nd image in that last post. It's a subtle difference, the one on the left is just a tad brighter, but with a tad less light in the beam, while overall being also a tad more powerful overall. Just compare the two beam profiles and decide which you prefer.


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> The beam profiles in posts 219 and 221 are not of the NS. They are simply examples to illustrate the phenomenon of beam power as a combined affect of candlepower and amount of lumen in the beam. Do not use those profiles for estimations regarding NS.


 Yes, I understood this. I was just trying to see if my calculation that the beam spot from the fictitious light source in that model would be approximately 72 feet in diameter at a distance of 3,280'?




> However, in my last post #224, the NS light on the left is optimized for "net illuminance" or overall beam intensity, beam power, or whatever we want to use to identify what it is that makes the beam and light on target more visible. It has a slightly longer FL than the NS on the right, and the beam has 6% more "net illuminance" so it will be 6% more intense "overall" but with 8.9% less lumen in the beam.
> 
> The best way to visualize the affect this has on the beam is to look at the two side-by-side beam profiles in the 2nd image in that last post. It's a subtle difference, the one on the left is just a tad brighter, but with a tad less light in the beam, while overall being also a tad more powerful overall. Just compare the two beam profiles and decide which you prefer.



Somehow, I got it backwards despite having read the info a few times. Makes me wonder how I did that. I did think that my eyes detected the left spot as being just a bit brighter. I am after "what makes the beam and light on target more visible" so Optimized Net Illuminance is my preference.

Can you post the Optimized Net Illuminance model of the actual NightSword as spec'd now? I'd like to see the data and how large the spot would be at the 3280' distance you've been using. 

I'm a numbers and data guy so I'm having lots of fun playing with this. This is one of my all-time favorite threads!


----------



## get-lit

Here you go... I'm now doing calculations at 3280.839895 Ft for 1 Km. *

Keep in mind, this is without the retro-reflector. The retro-reflector measures a 35% increase so multiply the results below by 1.35*. So you're looking at 63.855 Lux @ 1 Km, 63.855 MCP, and 37613.392875 Lumen in the beam, and 27619.72884 Net Illuminance...






Something significant to note is that we could increase the focal length to gain even more CP at the expense of increased lumen loss within the beam, and "*up to a point*" net illuminance (beam power) will continue to increase, until the point at which the hit from the lumen loss overtakes the gains from the CP as the source is moved further from the reflector of the same aperture diameter, at which point, the net illuminance (beam power) will then begin to decrease with further FL lengths.

I explored this with the calculator and found that, with this design with same aperture diameter, the optimal focal length strictly for net illuminance (beam power) is 7", which would produce another 85% in net illuminance (beam power), with 159 MCP and just 37613 Lumen in the beam. Beyond that focal length, the loss in lumen overtakes the benefit in CP and the net illuminance (beam power) decreases back down. But going with a longer FL than the 3" here makes the entire reflector housing become bulky and very much forward heavy because the entire diameter of the aperture has to move forward any distance which the FL is lengthened.

This brings me to another very important point I've been wanting to make, regarding the decision a few years back to go with this configuration over the specialized *XBO 500 W/RC OFR* with super short arc and *260,000 cd/cm^2* average luminance and only *0.8x0.7mm* arc gap. It would have produced 138 MCP with this optic design, which is more than double the current ~64 MCP. Some members were disappointed in my decision, but what I realized then but did not know how to quantify nor articulate at the time was this affect of net illuminance (beam power) in relation to both CP and lumen in the beam. This current configuration, although with less than half the CP of that previous plan, produces *2.59 times* the net illuminance (beam power) due to 5.8 times the amount of light in the beam.



Edit... Some longer FL considerations over the current 3" FL:

3.5" FL
Moves exhaust vent forward by .5"
Moves entire aperture forward by 3/8"
17.6% Less Lumen in the beam
14.1% More CP
9.6% More Net Illuminance (Beam Power)

4" FL
Moves exhaust vent forward by 1"
Moves entire aperture forward by 3/4"
30.6% Less Lumen in the beam
29.9% More CP
20.8% More Net Illuminance (Beam Power)

4.5" FL
Moves exhaust vent forward by 1.5"
Moves entire aperture forward by 1"
42.5% Less Lumen in the beam
43.4% More CP
29.1% More Net Illuminance (Beam Power)

5" FL
Moves exhaust vent forward by 2"
Moves entire aperture forward by 1.5"
50.9% Less Lumen in the beam
51.3% More CP
38.5% More Net Illuminance (Beam Power)

I'm not sure I'd want to be sacrificing any more lumen output and making the reflector housing any larger.


----------



## BVH

Do you have enough published data on the NightSun light and lamp to run a comparison model? A NightSun held in one hand would be unbelievable if I didn't know of this thread.


----------



## Lips

get-lit said:


> Ok guys, I need some more feedback. I can make a minor tweak in the design to optimize for one of the following...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit.. Spacing the below image from that of above to describe that the image below and left is the beam profile for the light on the left above optimized for beam power or net illuminance,
> and the image below right is the beam profile for the the light on the right above optimized for max lumen output.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which do you prefer?




I'd say the one on the right, almost identical to the eye in brightness overal but larger... Looks like the light on the right is slightly larger... If I had it in front of me I'd tell you in a second! Which one do you like 

Do either options have better focus ability going from spot to flood? It's hard to put in the mind how this thing beam focus will look real-world. Is it going to focus similar to a Maxabeam or some other light to reference to... May help some minds wrap around it better.



----

On another point while looking at the light I was wondering about mounting points so you don't have to *hand-hold* the light all the time (10 #'s). Have you considered any type of 3 side mounting capability made into the carbon fiber body. Something for a heavy tripod or rail mount system...


----------



## get-lit

BVH said:


> Do you have enough published data on the NightSun light and lamp to run a comparison model? A NightSun held in one hand would be unbelievable if I didn't know of this thread.



Sure do. I've overlaid the Nightsword beam @3" FL w/retro-reflector on the lower right...





Edit... I've been made aware the Nighsun dimensions are slightly different, and after plugging in the new dimensions the beam is about the same visibly. See *this post* for clarification.


----------



## get-lit

Lips said:


> I'd say the one on the right, almost identical to the eye in brightness overal but larger... Looks like the light on the right is slightly larger... If I had it in front of me I'd tell you in a second! Which one do you like
> 
> Do either options have better focus ability going from spot to flood? It's hard to put in the mind how this thing beam focus will look real-world. Is it going to focus similar to a Maxabeam or some other light to reference to... May help some minds wrap around it better.
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 
> On another point while looking at the light I was wondering about mounting points so you don't have to *hand-hold* the light all the time (10 #'s). Have you considered any type of 3 side mounting capability made into the carbon fiber body. Something for a heavy tripod or rail mount system...



Thank you for your input regarding which variation to go with. The one on the right is slightly deeper to catch as much of the light from lamp as possible, but being deeper makes it a bit closer to the source, which is why is has slightly less CP. More lumen or more CP is the trade-off I'm considering, and the resulting "net illuminance" value helps me along. The brightness comparison among these probably varies based upon how different monitors may ramp the light levels.

I had considered a 2-point rotating lockable mount like the Thor, but I think you're describing a gimbal style mount. I don't have time to come up with such a gimbal, but I'll include side mounting threads located at the center of gravity for those who'd like to get creative.

As far as de-focus ability, both of the two options posted are of very long FL with just a minor difference (3" vs 2.75") and therefore both have very large holes when de-focused. That's the nature of long FL, it's mostly for throw. I can say that when I defocused the beam in the clouds, there was so much light up there that the reflection of the clouds sort of obscured the hole. Below is the beam fully de-focused. I've overlaid the focused spot in the center for comparison. Also, I had to enlarge the F.O.V. by 4x to capture the full size of the flood in relation to the spot. The flood spreads to about 32 degrees. The SX-16 flood is 20 degrees. (The brightness of the flood in this profile is relative to itself, not to the spot within it)


----------



## BVH

That's a very graphic comparison - thank you! I see the Nsun is a 10" reflector with a 1.5" FL. Is that FL considered medium, short or still at the edge of Long?

In my mind, I'm using the standard 4 degree minimum NightSun as a frame of reference with which to try to visualize how the Nightsword will look at my range. One of the missing pieces of data is how I've typically seen the "standard performance" NightSun in operation on a typical police chopper - whether it's been in flood, mid-focus or fine, which is 4 degrees. Of course I'll never know. I see the NS EP is 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 CP and I'd guess it gets this increase by going down to 1 degree because it uses the same lamp and the reflector is the same diameter)

Am I ever excited!


----------



## get-lit

Yes, 1.5" FL is medium, right smack in the middle I'd say. Go in either direction and CP increases because the source becomes distanced from either one end of the reflector or the other, but they couldn't go any longer because the flood hole would become more an an issue for the application, and they couldn't any go shorter because too much light would be wasted though the vertex hole which needed to be large enough for air flow.

Edit: If you want to see something very similar, look at the photos in this post, from when I had planned on making something geared more for versatility as well. It's also a 1.5" FL, but with a smaller vertex hole and 10.5" CA, so that was a bit more powerful than SX-16 but nothing like the caliber we're talking now.

Also for comparison, the light in this photo had less than half the CP and beam power as this as well.


----------



## get-lit

These are the options I'm considering. I'm included a beam profile of the SX-16 for reference, kinda shows I'm splitting hairs relative to that. When I look at the rendered beams, I don't see enough difference to justify the added bulk of the 3.5" FL which has less light within its beam while being more powerful overall.


----------



## BVH

The 3" seems like good middle ground and as you say, it's splitting hairs as compared to the NightSun. Plus, it looks to be the shortest in length.


----------



## langham

Is their a de-cernable difference? Can you really tell the difference when the light is that powerful? What distances are you talking here? The only way you could tell would be to go off a couple miles, so are you going to make if just for the sake of saying that it has more than 75mCp or make something that may actually be used? It looks impressive regardless of which you go with, I like the 2.75" because the larger spot would be needed at these distances, but I don't think I would be allowed to purchase something like this anyway.


----------



## get-lit

Thanks langham. You are absolutely correct. I thought I'd be getting a lot of feedback to go longer, and I was hoping not. So there's some reason in this forum LOL.

Going longer on the FL is mostly for bragging rights, not for any practical gain, practicality decreases actually. I would go with 2.75", but there are two things holding me at 3" FL. Firstly, there is an entire range of CP gains to be had by going longer on the FL, all of the way up to 7", which is pulling me in the 3" direction away from 2.75". I'm also more comfortable with 3", as it's more of a standard, whereas 2.75" is entirely proprietary. The lumen loss between 3" and 2.75" is marginal enough for me to opt for 3" for these two reasons.

Edit: Also, the 3" FL actually has more lumen output in flood than the 2.75", more than the 4" as well. That does it, 3" FL it is.


----------



## get-lit

I was just made aware that the Nightsun reflector is just under 10" CA, and with a 1.3" FL rather than 1.5", and with a 3" vertex hole rather than 2.5". So it is tipping a bit toward the short end of FL at the expense of Lumen loss, it's light gather is under 50%. CP is actually a few MCP higher than I had previously calculated due to the added length between the source and the front of the reflector, but total beam power is a bit less due to the additional lumen loss with the shorter FL placing the lamp closer to the larger vertex hole.

The bigger issue for the Nightsun with these dimensions is that as the source is moved rear of the FL for flood, even more light is lost through the vertex hole. Full flood is only at 20 degrees and light gather is only 44% at that point. The Nightsword will reach 32 degrees still with 89% light gather. If the Nightsun were to flood 32 degrees, it's light gather would drop to 39%.

Edit - For anyone who's seen a Nightsun flood, here's how the Nightsword would compare at the Nightsun's max 20 degree flood (much brighter but with much bigger hole)...


----------



## shuen

get-lit,
Your calculation is based on point source or actual source shape & size?
Which one withstand more tolerance/various?

Wilson


----------



## get-lit

I love how a single little question here could have me writing all day. If it were an infinite point source, the light would collimate to infinite parallel of infinite candlepower, which is impossible.

The model applies an ellipsoidal source shape. This is my favorite part of the equation, and the most difficult. Lots of sines, cosines, degree to radian conversions, squares and square roots going on in this little particular part of the equation.

As the source width and height approach equal, the source shape approaches spherical. For each angle from the source to the reflector, the "angled source width" and "angled source height" are the length and width of the source's ellipsoidal area facing the reflector, which are applied toward that angle's beam diameter at distance. The beam shape becomes a circle because the angled source width is reflected around the perimeter of the reflector at each angle's reflection point. Toward the 90° reflection angle, the "angled source height" approaches the source height and toward the 0° and 180° reflection angles, the "angled source height" approaches the source width. The "angled source height" is calculated as the facing length of the ellipsoidal shape. The length and widths are reversed is the lamp is mounted perpendicular. Read the summary at the bottom of the *calculator* for more details.

Edit - while waiting for parts to arrive the bright colors got to be much for me so I toned it down and moved the warning label to the back...












*Large Size*


----------



## Davekan

I must admit, the red one was a bit loud. I like this look more.

Dave


----------



## BVH

How about the same darkest of the blues in your "Nightsword" name as a bezel color? Blue just happens to be my favorite color...well, blue and teal.


----------



## langham

BVH said:


> How about the same darkest of the blues in your "Nightsword" name as a bezel color? Blue just happens to be my favorite color...well, blue and teal.


+1 to that!


----------



## get-lit

Thank you. This kind of input is always welcome because as part my work with companies I've found that collaboration always turns out the best results, by a long shot. A primary goal of this project is making a CPF edition, which I hope to become a value as something limited and unique only to members here. This release is entirely non profit for me, but definitely not inexpensive as I'm sparing no expense in creating something to epitomize this die hard sickness we enjoy suffering from here. Everyone's ideas and criticisms only make this better, so I really appreciate it. Although I'm controlling the internal function, which I can assure will be something special, I'm leaving the direction of the look of this to others. It could end up anywhere from over the top to sleek and stealthy depending upon a general agreement.

On that note, there's a *brand new carbon fiber material* available that will either put you off or interest you. I myself am not sure what to make of it, but if it were to be used, I'm thinking blue or silver might be interesting. The purple looks like something right from the halo covenant. Just some thoughts I'm throwing out there. The blue bezel concept turned out nice. Kinda takes away from the ominous look I was going for, but very nice...











*Large Size*


----------



## one2tim

Wouldn't this light lead to eye damage if accidentally shined at people even miles away?


----------



## BVH

I love the blue! I'd still like to see the "45 KV" Lightening bolt placard!


----------



## get-lit

one2tim said:


> Wouldn't this light lead to eye damage if accidentally shined at people even miles away?



Not from miles away, but at closes distances it would cause instant permanent blindness, hence the warning label. People that would invest the kind of money it takes to build this are the kind of people that will take it seriously, and to promote safe and responsible use, I will associate serial numbers with owners and require owners to sign an acknowledgement that they have read, understand, and will adhere to precautions and use the light responsibly.


----------



## get-lit

BVH said:


> I love the blue! I'd still like to see the "45 KV" Lightening bolt placard!



There are actually four warning symbols.. Light radiation (eyes and skin), high voltage (ignitor), explosive (lamp), and fire (from the beam). I moved these to the back panel. You prefer them on the sides?


----------



## BVH

At least the 45KV placard on the 2 sides. There's just something "fun" and impressive about that placard!


----------



## Parker VH

BVH said:


> I love the blue! I'd still like to see the "45 KV" Lightening bolt placard!


+1 to that.


----------



## langham

I think it would look better with the bezel in black and the Nightsword in blue around the bezel. You are right I think that the amount of blue is a little much, but the Nightsword would probably set it off. This might sound a little bit non-CPFish, but I don't know if I want to be responsible for the vision of everyone around me.


----------



## Ceya!

Always point down range, give saftey brief. Nobody forward of this line and stand behind operator by 5 feet.

Any high lumen light ( even those at 200-3000) will be a risk if pointing to the eye.

Really, Nobody should operated it other than the owner.

Nice light, can't wait to see prototype.

For carbon fiber, are you using multi direction and 1 or 2 ply?

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## get-lit

Don't be afraid to say what you think, they may like it. I'll post a link to a large image of the variations all lined up and take a poll when the suggestions stop coming. You could also PM me a suggestion and I'll include it in the line up.

Ceya... 3K 2x2 Twill Weave

Regarding focus end stop adjustment, I have a solid solution that is based on adjustment of a physical limit using a screwdriver. However, I came across a tiny rotary encoder which could integrate with the focus motor and the controller to provide PWM control of the focus motor, which would then allow for strictly electronic adjustment. For instance, the power button could be held down for 5 seconds to "unlock" the focus end stop position, you would move the focus, and then hold down the power button again to "lock" the end stop position again. I just wanted to share this idea, but I'll probably opt for the physical solution for simplicity, where the end stop is simply unlocked and locked with a screwdriver.

I also received the new fan, DC converter, focus motor, IR temp sensor, and controller board, and have familiarized myself with the programming process of the controller board. I'm still learning the board's C programming functions. This thing is no joke. A few hundred pages of documentation. The PID functions available for the Arduino can work directly on this board.


----------



## get-lit

*NS CPF Comparison Lineup*


----------



## Parker VH

get-lit said:


> *NS CPF Comparison Lineup*


#2 :thumbsup:


----------



## BVH

#3 for me. I like the CF and blue text contract more than all blue. Changed my mind once I saw it.


----------



## langham

+1 for 3 that is a sexy piece of art!


----------



## TEEJ

I think #3 too, but the 4 warning triangles just seem a smidgeon too forward?


----------



## get-lit

I got a request for a safety lockout feature in case their kids get ahold of the light and it's an excellent idea. I'll include the ability to enable an optional unlock sequence using the 5-way button.

Also any interest in holographic decals (flat non-patterned silver, blue or teal blue)? Might be over the top with the carbon, but throwing it out there.

Edit as per TEEJ: How far back? Anyone else?

The manufacture of the primary reflector is now a done deal! The company is also a supporter of CPF.


----------



## BVH

Safety lockout is generally a very good idea. Making it optional via software is even better! No lockout for me. At first. I didn't see that you had also changed all of the other text on the light to blue. It looks fabulous! I really like the CPF edition font! I could see the placards centered within the body at the current height you show them. Maybe a touch more space btw each one. Phoenix? Not sure on the Halographic placards. Possible to post an example in the blue/teal color?

This light is going to be so beautiful that I may have to keep it in a display case and never use it! (No way on the "not use it" part)


----------



## Ceya!

The triangles, I would spread them out.

You can put them like a box shape above the 1KW label.

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## BVH

Forgot to mention the Mcmaster items arrived today.


----------



## get-lit

Ceya, I couldn't get them to fit there.

I spread them out evenly to the phi ratio of the width of that panel.

My vote went to #3 as well, so I removed 1 and 2 from the lineup.

I messed with halographic and it made me feel nauseous so that's out. I instead created another option #4 with mirror reflective finish for the logos only.

To see the updated images in the *comparison lineup*, do a hard refresh in your browser (CTRL+F5)


----------



## BVH

Still #3 for me.


----------



## TEEJ

Still #3 for me too. Something about the warning triangles just seems out of place...maybe the CPF version would not need them?



As long as we're signing waivers, why not?


----------



## Ceya!

Now, need to center it off and yes #3 also.

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## get-lit

It's unanimous.. #3 it is. All others are removed from the comparison.

I actually prefer that the warning labels not be a part of the aesthetics at all and prefer to place them on the back side, but most here want them on the sides.

Edit... I tried something different with the labels on #3 in *the comparison*, let me know your thoughts on it. If this doesn't work, I may end up placing them on the back side.


----------



## BVH

I'm liking the placards moved where you have them in the latest comparison as compared to before. And seeing how sleek the sides look cleaned of the placards, I could easily see the light without any of them as you indicate in your above post.


----------



## langham

+1 to that they don't match the nice lines of the side and they really should be visible, although once that thing is ignited there will be no question of its serious nature.


----------



## TEEJ

That IS better, but, to me, the right-most triangle seems, well, off balance. The graphic is weighted the wrong way from an aesthetic stand-point.


----------



## get-lit

TEEJ, you're right, I flipped that bugger for ya.

Ok here's a more visible warning *#3b*. Hard refresh to see changes (CTRL+F5).

Edit... #3b gets my vote. I like how the warning symbols are like arrows directed with the beam.


----------



## Ceya!

3B.

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## get-lit

Ya judging by what's been discussed already, I'm going to go ahead and assume it will be 3b, so I'll render for here...

(Edited.. These drawings have been updated to 3c as per the followup discussion)












*Large Version*


----------



## BVH

Looking real good! How about a little bolder on the "60 MCP"? Maybe a bold font or some other alteration to make the "1KW" stand out a bit more?


----------



## TEEJ

IDK, I think its obvious enough, I mean, we don't want the moral equivalent of the Firebird's "Screaming Chicken" decal package, now do we?


----------



## langham

BVH said:


> Looking real good! How about a little bolder on the "60 MCP"? Maybe a bold font or some other alteration to make the "1KW" stand out a bit more?


You could use art rules to make the front text a warmer color and use a background color that is more cool that would make them both pop out at you without actually making them huge and ugly. My suggestion would be maybe a slightly orange leaning on the red text with a blue outline, but that wouldn't go with the rest of it. It would on the other hand make it stick out. You don't have to go very thick on the orange just enough to make your eyes attracted to it.
Edit: Actually I couldn't find a good way to do what I stated above, maybe you would have better luck, but I did get the inverse to work and it definitely made it stick out more.


----------



## get-lit

I've Typically seen the creative aspect of projects evolve into the Firebird style for a period while creativity is explored, and then end up toned way down again. To keep this sort of discussion from topping the HID forum, I'm pushing through this phase quickly by skipping to the conclusion which I'm sure everyone would arrive at based upon the suggestions and I'm very pleased where it took this... I made 1KW a solid font and selected slightly brighter colors the thin elements. Hard refresh to see #3c. I also replaced the drawings in my last post with 3c.

Quick question... Do you prefer to label the initial lumen output (as 75K LUMEN) or the OTF beam lumen (45K OTF LUMEN)?


----------



## BVH

The BIGGG number! 75K


----------



## get-lit

Will do. I'm looking to use force-sensing resistors for the buttons, where the harder the focus is pressed, the faster it moves. I've updated the drawings for this.


----------



## Lips

Just some thoughts!

Would be un-heard-of to put the warnings on the Butt of the light? Warning draws the eye too much and seems to take away the beauty a little.


75 K :twothumbs (It's hard to read the way rendered, I just now figured out what it said!)



Could you define briefly: I plead some ignorance and didn't find definition on goog... I guess someone spending allot of money on a light should know!

RLF Optic
TPA Alignment



Thought about using a key switch to kill power for safety... Just thinking out loud... Keyed all alike. Just for safety...


The design (aesthetics) looks great but I think you should give it some time. Something feels as its not there yet.
I really like your logo on your web page, nightsword.com I think it needs to say Searchlight on it similar to the logo (drop the s) I like the blue fade on the bottom too as it makes searchlights pop.


Anyhow, thanks for letting us participate and exchange ideas!


----------



## get-lit

Actually, a warning message will be on the back side along with serial. I could put the warning icons there as well, but I'm trying to find the middle ground between those who would like the icons be part of the design and those who wouldn't. Now that it's been mentioned, I agree it's too attention drawing, but I prefer not to abandon how it is now. I will make two alternatives, one with the warning smaller and thinner, and one with the warning in color tertiary to the blue (lime or yellow-orange). I tried tertiary color before and liked it.

The acronyms you're asking about are not found anywhere because they are specific to this light. I'm surprised this wasn't asked before actually. RLF is "Retroreflected Long Focus" and TPA is the method of lamp and focus alignment which I'll delve into later.

Regarding your last suggestion, I work on the aesthetics as a release when I take a break from the rest of the project, so it's not set in stone until the rest of the project is complete. I'd like to try adding solid color surfaces; high end carbon bike frames do this. We did it with the light blue bezel, but it should be something that follows the lines of the housing, not opposite, in order to have better flow to the look. I'll post what I have in mind soon.


----------



## BVH

How about limiting the warning "ring" of icons on the back end to just the icons and ditch the word "warning" and maybe or maybe not, the yellow separation line?

The new large hi res drawing is just gorgeous! Maybe it would be nice to have a little more of the fading blue on the light somewhere, I don't have any ideas just now but the fading blue in contrast to the carbon weave is stunning. EDIT: Maybe something on or at each end of the handle? I like the background white/cream color you used. It softens the starkness of white and makes the light stand out more. You have great design skills!

I just got a new, high-end 2590 x 1400 monitor and am running it with Dual-Link DVI to get the full res. Any chance of posting or sending me a full-size high res dwg?

How are the graphics "attached"? Decals? Something under the gel coat or?


----------



## get-lit

The decals will be in the mold under the gelcoat. Working on something now and will post soon. I'll PM you a super high res after we've gotten through the current suggestions.


----------



## Ceya!

You could put the warning triangles on the top of bezel under the NIGHTSWORD name. 

This way when I have a grip of the handle and look at the light, it there.


 NIGHTSWORD
WARNING: triangle,triangle triangle triangle

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## get-lit

Regarding Lips's suggestion for a safety key, I might consider a safety release lanyard, like on a boat.

I like Ceya's idea with the warnings, Lips's idea with the logo, and BVH's idea with having a solid color somewhere around the handle and I've been experimenting... came up with tons of garbage but a few concepts I like. I narrowed them down to this...












*Large Version*

The problem with this is I could not use a decal for the solid colors around the handle, it has to be applied as a masked off paint under the clear coat, and in two stages because it's two tones. It won't actually be too difficult, just more time for each one. I could create 3d stencils by making thin parts from the mold and cutting those parts along the curved lines to be masked.


----------



## BVH

I like the handle and would be happy with or without it. If there will be an option for "with" or "without" warnings, then I would prefer no warnings or just the actual triangles as they were on the last version, ringed around the back without the text and separation line or on the back panel itself. I did not see this until now - is the side body sort of rounded and is there a change in direction of the carbon where the new blue and gold strip is wide and dies? I would prefer not having the stripe. Looks like I am going back to the previous version, give or take.

EDIT: Just noticed that the "60 MCP" changed to gold. I liked it when blue. I think it just seems like too much gold is taking away from the beautiful stark blue and carbon contrast. Yeah, I like it back to the last version without the warning text.


----------



## get-lit

Thanks BVH. I'll wait for more input from others and work with it. This is the profile of just the back of the housing, before it transitions to the reflector housing...


----------



## BVH

Don't know how I missed that transition all this time. Very nice rounded lines!


----------



## langham

Yeah, baby got back!:twothumbs I am with BVH on the design I liked it before all of the recent modifications.


----------



## langham

What did you use to build your 3D rendering? I have started using blender and it seems to be limited on the options maybe you have better software to recommend?


----------



## get-lit

I use Rhinosoft.

Because of the potential for harm from the light, anyone who may even inadvertently pick up the light must be made aware of the hazard. When extrapolating from the SX-16 distance warnings and according to information I've read about light intensity and the eyes, these are the likely affects of exposure from the Nightsword...

-Never shine the light at anyone within 250 feet
-Instant Short Term Blindness within 200 feet
-Instant Long Term Blindness within 125 feet
-Instant Permanant Blindness within 50 Feet
-Ignition of Flammable Materials within 20 feet

(instant means faster than the blink reflex could protect the eyes)

I'm not sure the best way to present this information, but it is necessary in one form or another. Maybe have the "250 feet" warning on the bezel and all other warnings on the back side of the light.

I made *a few variations*, #5b is back to the blue, but haven't gotten to changing the bezel until I know more of what is needed to be done with the warnings.

Edit.. I can easily change color any time, but first need to determine where text and colored surfaces are to be located. If anyone wants to play around with some ideas of their own, you can *download this* to draw on.


----------



## ma_sha1

Looking real good! Is it going to be real carbon fiber body?:twothumbs

Personally, I think too many text all over the body looks distracting. maybe make some of them sticker instead? so user can choose to keep on or take off?


----------



## get-lit

Thanks ma sha. This is a CPF version to have a fixed look. The non-CPF version is the plain jane.

I added #5e which is toned down with the use of deeper blues.


----------



## BVH

Definitely 5B for me. Wasn't sure about the dark blue on the handle before but changing the gold stripe to light blue/Cyan, really sets it off!! Same with keeping the "NIGHT" in Night/Sword on the front bezel and "60 MCP" on the back Cyan versus the darker version in 5E. The bottom body stripe really looks good too, having changed it with the narrow Cyan accent. What a beauty! While it's most likely obvious that I love the two blues together, the blue fades and blue in general, I still prefer the "CPF Edition" to be the Gold versus the change in 5E. It stands out just right.


----------



## get-lit

Ok, the CPF decal on 5b is more gold now. That should do it for BVH. Also added variations 5b2 and 5e2 with a change to the lower right.


----------



## langham

I think this might be the first time we have disagreed, but I liked the 5E2 version better, due to the slightly darker blues. I agree with the warnings and the more I think about it the more the key of some sort sounds like a good idea. The lockout would protect from children, but this needs full grown adult protection as well. The first thing anybody wants to do when they get one of my lights is shine it at someone and normally the target is within 10ft so that would cause instant blindness in addition to serious burns prior to the person putting it down. This thing seems like it would be like introducing a gun into the hands of a child, because grown ups just don't know the hazards. I haven't had anyone blinded by my blu-ray laser, but then again no one is allowed to touch it.


----------



## TEEJ

The idea of a waiver that it can't be pointed at anyone, ever, is better that listing specific footages...given that in court, people, uh, misremember how close they were if they blind someone.

I think its also a sales incentive, as how many lights they are comparing to ALSO say that and make you sign something?


----------



## BVH

Opps, I was not clear on the "CPF Edition" Gold in the prior post. My intent was to say it was great as it looked. Sorry. 5B2 for me. I love Cyan. The muted blues will not contrast nearly as well with the black CF.

Please, no key switch. Maybe something programmed like a triple tap within 2 seconds to "unlock".


----------



## get-lit

Ok so we're down to 5b2 and 5e2, I'll remove the others. I'm going to sleep on it before casting a vote.

Lots of excellent points here, especially about how an unaware adult is the same as a child. There definitely will be a means to prevent an unaware person from operating the light. I'm leaning toward a button sequence, *different for each light* so that someone can't just look up the sequence online. That is in effect a key, an electronic key.


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> Lots of excellent points here, especially about how an unaware adult is the same as a child. There definitely will be a means to prevent an unaware person from operating the light. I'm leaning toward a button sequence, *different for each light* so that someone can't just look up the sequence online. That is in effect a key, an electronic key.



Yeah! I like it!


----------



## get-lit

I split the difference in hues between the two of you right in half for 5f2. I'm still undecided.


----------



## TEEJ

Dang, might as well install a fingerprint or iris ID scanner - (On the BACK...)


----------



## jmpaul320

i have to say - great work here... i havent visited this thread in a few months and its great to see all of whats happened... are you going to do a group buy of these or is it just a hobby mod for yourself?

either way - this goes way way beyond flashlight and into the realm of helicopter search light.

again - excellent work!


----------



## get-lit

Thanks jmpaul320, here's more info.

TEEJ, what I like about the button sequence is that there are no additional components, just a firmware update.

Here's the 5's... They seem to go from a race car look to a luxury look, and they'd all pass in my book. I'm done for a while, getting back to programming the controller for now.


----------



## BVH

My preference is still 5b2 but the compromise would be good also if the light blue thin stripes at the back of the handle and front of the bottom stripes and the "1 KW" were also the light blue compromise. Maybe it's my eyes but they don't look the same as the front bezel light blue?


----------



## get-lit

Ah yes, good eye there. Updated.


----------



## BVH

I think that looks great!

One last request. Could you create another page so as not to disturb this one for the others, that show 5b2 and 5f2 side-by-side? Even with this monitor, I can't see the two together.

Also, just something that I've thought about. On the top handle stripes. What if the front of the dark blue part followed the arc/contour of the back-inside of the handle cavity up to the top of the handle instead of extending an inch or so forward onto the handle?


----------



## get-lit

There's something that's been really bothering me that I couldn't figure out. I kept doing various things to try and figure it out and I finally got it. We're using too many colors. When I look around, all the most high end things have just ONE primary color which is contrasted with only white, black, or both. High end carbon bikes, motorcycles, exotic cars, they all do this. So here's what I'm thinking. If I were to make only certain dedicated graphics be the primary color, I could offer the ability to choose your own primary color while maintaining a completely consistent "CPF Edition" look. Here's what I have in mind.


----------



## Lips

Your gonna drive yourself to get-lit!


Still like 5b2 better than latest multiple renderings ("searchlight" in gold really popped but gone)... All except for the blue box around the 1kw on 5b2.



For me your logo just stands out. I hate to ask but can't help it! Can you do one like your logo (with the faded blue background as in logo) (minimum busy like the Non CPF on body and tail) (with the 5b2 bezel colors on bezel or like the logo colors) Maybe a little taller lettering since rest of lettering minimal so name stands out and catches eye first. Little bigger letters on Searchlight. Damn I hate to ask!








P.S. The electronic lockout is a fabulous idea as the first thing people do when I take my PH-50 on a trip is turn it on and off rapidly and then point it at someone 10 feet away.


----------



## BVH

With Lips on this go around. Still like my 5b2 followed by the 5f2 compromise then Lips suggestion on using your logo on side and bezel with fade and beautiful blue/cobalt under.


----------



## get-lit

Ok you got it guys. I'll post something this evening.


----------



## TEEJ

The Arctic looked less toy like than the other variations.


----------



## get-lit

Lips, I will create another toned down version later for you to look at. I can not stretch the logo vertically, it would destroy the height/width thickness proportion of the font. However, I was able to make the logo much larger on the bezel.

Ok, during the mold process with this one, I could dust the inner side with deep blue spray paint before laying the carbon to get the "cobalt" blue faded background effect,
or more likely just have the decal printed with faded transparency.

Also added to the current *CPF Comparisons*.

(Edit: These have been updated as per follow-up discussions)











Comparison to very first incarnation...





*1920x1080*
*2560x1440*


----------



## TEEJ

I am trying really hard to think of why I might need one of these...besides the obvious addiction to these things...

...Its not a good search and rescue light unless I'm ONLY going to potentially FIND anyone at least ~ a half mile away or more, that's a niche maybe...VERY long range searches. Or - for those who are lost due to existing blindness...?

It could represent a "bedside" defensive measure, in that it would definitely allow me to see a night intruder without them being able to see me, or much of anything, ever again....which MIGHT be better than a round to their head? (Lumens or lead...which is better to GET?)  For me, its always better to give than receive...

Rewarming a pot of chili, over at the next campsite over?

I'm SURE it will come up as very important one night to see the bottom of a cloud in more detail.

Maybe I could just shine it in lazy circles at the sky at store openings?

Anyone else have any suggestions?


----------



## langham

You could also move closer to the ocean and prevent large vessels from meeting their untimely demise on the sharp and perilous rocks.


----------



## TEEJ

langham said:


> You could also move closer to the ocean and prevent large vessels from meeting their untimely demise on the sharp and perilous rocks.



Brilliant! Of course, I might have to build a tall tower so I could shine further...the curvature of the earth would be an interference with the beam travel...

And, if I have that important of a role, I should be on duty every night at least....maybe make a place to sleep during the day...and if I actually live there at that point...I might as well make it a tall house with a glass room on top to shine the light out through in inclement weather.

A house along the shore to shine lights out of....we could patent it! Call it a Light _HOUSE_! 

Dream job for a flashaholic....with shades of Brave New World...


----------



## BVH

My lord, that is a thing of beauty!!!!!!!! SOLD!


----------



## Parker VH

BVH said:


> My lord, that is a thing of beauty!!!!!!!! SOLD!


I agree 100%


----------



## get-lit

See now that wasn't so difficult lol, glad it's liked.

The 1 Lux distance should be 5 miles, so you'd only need to be 15 feet above the ocean.

Edit.. BVH, I linked to large sizes in the post, one @ your rez.


----------



## Lips

Parker VH said:


> I agree 100%




I like it too!


----------



## get-lit

Ok so it's unanimous so far. It gets my vote as well. I'd say it's a wrap. I'm dumping the old files to reduce bandwidth.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Awesome thread!


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Ok fun is over, back to the nitty gritty. Need help from the electronic gurus here. I'm not sure how to utilize this particular fan with the controller board because it's not a standard PWM fan. It's a new fan type with double the pressure and consumes less power than it's standard PWM variant. It uses two counter rotating fans totaling 29,500 max RPM. Can someone help me make heads or tails of the wiring? It has EIGHT wires! Here's the *datasheet*.


----------



## Davekan

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Here is a good read. It is on fan selection. http://www.newark.com/pdfs/techarticles/sanyo/DCFan_Selection.pdf

I can't get your link to work.

Dave


----------



## get-lit

Lips said:


> Curious what expertise background you have to design such a light.


----------



## TEEJ

get-lit said:


>
















http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-U-DofsI21A






Was this the Holiday Inn you stayed at while designing it?


----------



## get-lit

Too many kV that night.. Shhh!!!


----------



## langham

I used that a lot when I was a field service tech. Just roll up into a plant wearing my company logo on no less than 3 items of clothing. They inevitably would still ask if I was the GUY, to which I would reply no, but I did stay at a holiday in express last night. I can't get into the link for the fan, I do have quite a bit of experience with fans if you can get the link to work I could take a look at it for you.


----------



## langham

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*



Davekan said:


> Here is a good read. It is on fan selection. http://www.newark.com/pdfs/techarticles/sanyo/DCFan_Selection.pdf
> 
> I can't get your link to work.
> 
> Dave


I really liked this link it showed quite a bit about the design factors. Some other things that are more basic that you can look at to tell exactly what a fan will do are the angle of the blades the closer to 90 they get the louder it will be with higher velocity for a given cross-section and speed. 2 fans in series will theoretically double your D/P and your velocity while leaving the mass flow rate essentially the same, while adding a fan in parallel will practically double the mass flow rate but leave the volumetric flow rate essentially the same. The one with guide vanes allows the air to have a more uniform discharge pattern which will cut down on the amount of noise and allow more even cooling. The CR fan is an excellent design that sounds like what you are dealing with, they work best with an inlet plenum and outlet plenum to ensure that the suction is adequately supplied and that the discharge is more uniform. There is a fair amount of turbulence between the 2 stages which causes the noise, but it also mixes the air very well. Once the link is up and running I will try to help out further, thanks for the eye candy that final rendering is just plane sexy. Did any of you guys get the e-mail about the DEFT-X, I don't think I am going to be purchasing one, because I would also have to purchase a divorce lawyer at the same time, but it does look pretty amazing. One more thing Get-lit do you have any specs on how close you can get to the light before causing instant blindness on full flood? I think I would always store it in that manner anyway, but just figured I would ask, and how long until full brightness is achieved? I may have seen it earlier, but this thread is getting pretty lengthy and I can not remember.


----------



## BVH

Found a Sanyo Denki counter rotating 60mm fan page. It says is has a tach sensor wire, lock-rotor wire and PWM wire. But no datasheet. Do the 8 wires split into 4 for each fan? Nothing much helpful here but here it is:

ww.sanyodenki.co.jp/en/news/2008/20080703_San_Ace_60x51CR_e.html


----------



## langham

http://db.sanyodenki.co.jp/product_db/cooling/dcfan/group_pdf/1332146076.pdf
I believe this is the fan that you are referring to.


----------



## langham

Under common specifications it has a simple explanation to the hook ups, BVH was right they are just separated and the diagram is just showing how it works not that you have to hook it up any different. Each fan has a +,-, control and sense wire. Good luck, I like the fan choice I did find some other nice fans in my search for this one, but it seems like they are all of comparable quality. Are you going to put a filter on the inlet? That would explain the need for a fan with such high D/P characteristics.


----------



## get-lit

*This is the fan*.. You have the correct PDF.

I actually may have it figured out now with the help of HKJ via PM.

Yes, air filter on low pressure side, but with rather large surface area to reduce pressure reduction because fans are much more sensitive to pressure on the inlet side.

I'll get back soon regarding safe distance with flood..

Edit... The distances I provided are extended to safety. The Nightsun does this as well. The more realistic distance for instant permanent blindness with full focus is more like 35 feet, and 5 ft with full flood. So with flood on, you're safer beyond 5 feet, but within 5 feet, the cone of danger is 16.7" diameter rather than 11". Flood is clearly much safer overall.

The focused beam has much more intensity than the Nightsun, except within 12 feet. Within 12 feet, the Nightsun has a super intense center within the beam because the reflector is more of a short FL and the majority of 
the light is being reflected from the central section of the reflector close to the lamp. That light does not collimate as well and becomes the flood at distance, but within 12 feet it's intensity is more than the Nightsword. Remember the Nightsword has a uniform beam pattern due to the even spacing of the source to reflector surface over the luninance angles. At 1 foot, the Nightsun's beam center is 4 times the Nightsword.

langham, I forgot to mention, full brightness takes about 70 seconds.


----------



## TEEJ

What distance would the sword's beam convergence occur at?

IE: If you wanted to measure the cd, what would the optimum measurement point be? Obviously, at 1 meter, it would measure a a hole.


----------



## get-lit

It's parabolic, convergence occurs at a virtual point 88 feet behind the aperture, not in front. Lux increases closer to the aperture.

Due to the nature of parabolic reflection, cd or CP measurements always yield higher results with greater distance (*3rd paragraph*). This should give an idea...

68.65 MCP @ 100,000 ft (0.074 Lux)
68.42 MCP @ 10,000 ft (7.4 Lux)
68.18 MCP @ 5,000 ft (29 Lux)
67.93 MCP @ 1 km (67.93 Lux)
67.69 MCP @ 2,500 ft (117 Lux)
66.27 MCP @ 1,000 ft (713 Lux)
64.02 MCP @ 500 ft (2,756 Lux)
59.89 MCP @ 250 ft (10,315 Lux)
49.88 MCP @ 100 ft (53,690 Lux)
38.37 MCP @ 50 ft (165,211 Lux)
25.16 MCP @ 25 ft (433,397 Lux)

Keep in mind, these are calculations. The actual measurements could be slightly more or less depending on the source luminance concentration. I will compare measurements once the primary reflector is made.


----------



## hahoo

get-lit said:


> It's parabolic, convergence occurs at a virtual point 88 feet behind the aperture, not in front. Lux increases closer to the aperture.
> 
> Due to the nature of parabolic reflection, cd or CP measurements always yield higher results with greater distance (*3rd paragraph*). This should give an idea...
> 
> 68.65 MCP @ 100,000 ft (0.074 Lux)
> 68.42 MCP @ 10,000 ft (7.4 Lux)
> 68.18 MCP @ 5,000 ft (29 Lux)
> 67.93 MCP @ 1 km (67.93 Lux)
> 67.69 MCP @ 2,500 ft (117 Lux)
> 66.27 MCP @ 1,000 ft (713 Lux)
> 64.02 MCP @ 500 ft (2,756 Lux)
> 59.89 MCP @ 250 ft (10,315 Lux)
> 49.88 MCP @ 100 ft (53,690 Lux)
> 38.37 MCP @ 50 ft (165,211 Lux)
> 25.16 MCP @ 25 ft (433,397 Lux)
> 
> Keep in mind, these are calculations. The actual measurements could be slightly more or less depending on the source luminance concentration. I will compare measurements once the primary reflector is made.





so it does 7.4 lux at almost 2 mile ?


----------



## get-lit

yes, down to 1 lux @ 5 miles.


----------



## Patriot

get-lit said:


>





This thing is amazing Get-lit. Great look man!


----------



## TEEJ

Is there a way to do a pressure/remote switch for a weapon mount?

Would it take recoil?


----------



## get-lit

Patriot said:


> This thing is amazing Get-lit. Great look man!



Thank you Patriot. It would not have turned out this nice without the input from here.



TEEJ said:


> Is there a way to do a pressure/remote switch for a weapon mount?
> 
> Would it take recoil?



I'd probably do some sort of remote function capability down the road. That's the benefit of firmware update capability. The DC converter and ignitor are fully encapsulated and the ballast will be encapsulated at lower half, so I see no reason it couldn't handle recoil, but it's way too big and heavy to weapon mount. Bullets don't go nearly that far anyhow, not even 50 cal, and I have one.


----------



## langham

But if you are shooting a .50 cal at greater than 1000 ft you would definitely need as much light as possible, although I don't see any reason that you wouldn't have a spotter for such a dangerous operation.


----------



## TEEJ

Maybe if this WAS the weapon, I could mount a 50 cal to IT, in case blinding the enemy was insufficient.

In seriousness, the light doesn't seem more unwieldy than an HID Hellfighter, etc, in that type of use.

And with proper sighting in, etc, I'm sure you could get the light aligned with the point of impact and use it as a rather robust targeting laser.


----------



## TEEJ

It occurs to me that the lower contact points, when the light would be lain down, would be a wear/impact surface.

Would it be prudent to put something at these expected bump/contact/wear points to increase durability/reduce wear and tear? 

I like the aesthetic as is, albeit it seems some sort of reinforcement is in order there.


----------



## AceDan

I want one


----------



## TEEJ

AceDan said:


> I want one



LOL

Told you.




You can bring it to PF20


----------



## AceDan

TEEJ said:


> LOL
> 
> Told you.
> 
> 
> 
> You can bring it to PF20



Haha!!! I'm swapping it for the mini mag ;-)


----------



## TEEJ

Good swap.


----------



## TEEJ

Get-Lit - I know its too soon to hold you to anything, as you're "not there yet"...but, I was wondering if you had a rough guess, so far at least, as to the price range for the Light Sword?

I would LOVE to get it, but, I AM worried that its price point would get me killed in my sleep, etc. 

So, any guesses?


----------



## get-lit

I'm not in a position to do that just yet, as I'm sure BVH will tell you since working with me, I'm going to all extents to cut material and production costs without compromising anything. Obviously the fixed costs for ballast, ignitor, lamp, and Rhodium coated and high-reflective enhancement coated nickel reflector/retro-reflector run several thousand alone. Going with pressure sensitive tabs instead of the $100+ 5-way mini sealed navigation switch will save a bit, but I'm going with higher power DC converter and fans which consume that savings.

I'm also excited about the pressure sensitive tabs (pic below). They will also be embedded between the clearcoat and carbon fiber, so completely sealed and I think 5 of them will look kind of sci-fi under the clear coat in the thumb area of the top at the handle...


----------



## BVH

So instead of a "Maxabeam-style" 5-way switch, 5 of these will be in a pattern on the handle to somewhat provide the same type of control? Something like a forward and rearward pair for focus, a left and right for strobe and ? and one in the center for on/off?

Get Lit is right about finding high quality products that require less machining. This process is also causing me to work out some of the kinks in my machinery and tooling. It's a lot of fun for me to be able to do this.


----------



## get-lit

Now I'm thinking the power button would be better in a different location.

Here's how I envision the top of the handle...






(look at side profile to see how the button area flattens out from the round handle)


----------



## AceDan

get-lit said:


> I'm not in a position to do that just yet, as I'm sure BVH will tell you since working with me, I'm going to all extents to cut material and production costs without compromising anything. Obviously the fixed costs for ballast, ignitor, lamp, and Rhodium coated and high-reflective enhancement coated nickel reflector/retro-reflector run several thousand alone. Going with pressure sensitive tabs instead of the $100+ 5-way mini sealed navigation switch will save a bit, but I'm going with higher power DC converter and fans which consume that savings.
> 
> I'm also excited about the pressure sensitive tabs (pic below). They will also be embedded between the clearcoat and carbon fiber, so completely sealed and I think 5 of them will look kind of sci-fi under the clear coat in the thumb area of the top at the handle...



I'll give you a $1000 ;-)


----------



## one2tim

AceDan said:


> I'll give you a $1000 ;-)



I think that is almost an insult although not ment that way. Guess the light is gonna cost alot more.


----------



## AceDan

Lol. Definitely not meant that way - I like to add humour. 

Very curious those like most on how much it would cost though. Amazing bit of kit.


----------



## get-lit

I got the joke. I'll work out a rough estimate. Actually the longer I put off a cost the less the figure will be because as time passes after spending money on materials and tooling etc, I tend to just forget about those costs and end up not including them in a total.


----------



## AceDan

get-lit said:


> I got the joke. I'll work out a rough estimate. Actually the longer I put off a cost the less the figure will be because as time passes after spending money on materials and tooling etc, I tend to just forget about those costs and end up not including them in a total.



Is it bank loan time?! Don't forget we're in a recession ;-)


----------



## get-lit

You have to keep in mind this will be twice as powerful as the Nightsun which costs 20 grand and is not even portable, and it's around 40 times more powerful than the ACR RCL600 that costs 8 grand and also is not portable. I've dedicated years of my personal time on this, already spent over 15k with at least another 5k to go yet just to begin production, not including per unit component costs, and I have little income that I work hard for and more than half goes to support for 4 children, and I'm offering to CPF'ers below my actual cost to make it. I've explained this before and if it's still not appreciated, this is not for you.


----------



## AceDan

get-lit said:


> You have to keep in mind this will be twice as powerful as the Nightsun which costs 20 grand and is not even portable, and it's around 40 times more powerful than the ACR RCL600 that costs 8 grand and also is not portable. I've dedicated years of my personal time on this, already spent over 15k with at least another 5k to go yet just to begin production, not including per unit component costs, and I have little income that I work hard for and more than half goes to support for 4 children, and I'm offering to CPF'ers below my actual cost to make it. I've explained this before and if it's still not appreciated, this is not for you.



I think you'll find that this is very much appreciated and is a fantastic bit of kit. You should patent it and think about commercial sales.


----------



## BVH

Get Lit, Can't send a PM due to PM limits.


----------



## Ceya!

Hey guys, im back but a short time. 

Until Saturday. Health issues.

GL,

You have front diagrams of the light.

I have a lot to read on Saturday.

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## naiter

get-lit said:


> You have to keep in mind this will be twice as powerful as the Nightsun which costs 20 grand and is not even portable, and it's around 40 times more powerful than the ACR RCL600 that costs 8 grand and also is not portable. I've dedicated years of my personal time on this, already spent over 15k with at least another 5k to go yet just to begin production, not including per unit component costs, and I have little income that I work hard for and more than half goes to support for 4 children, and I'm offering to CPF'ers below my actual cost to make it. I've explained this before and if it's still not appreciated, this is not for you.



It will be more than appreciated by everyone that buys one. 
You are making the unbelievable a reality!!

I want to sell everything I own, except maybe a few other lights of course 

Just curious, How many of these priceless gems will end up being made? Do you have a set number? How many serious buyers (at any price) do you have?

are you planning on trying to make money eventually?
I think you should charge more for your time...

Edit:
finally read the entire thread... a month later.
I really enjoyed your posts on page 8!! Learning a lot here.
What do you program?


----------



## TEEJ

Get-Lit, please don't get defensive...no one is saying its not worth it...we're just worried we can't afford it.



And you know what it means when a flashaholic can't afford a light...we buy it anyway.


----------



## get-lit

Ceya, I'm very sorry to hear about your health. I hope you can get well and not have to worry about it.

naiter, I program in 7 languages, but primarily in PHP, followed by cgi, with PHP being my favorite by far. The beam calculator is written in PHP. For work I interface banks with online shopping carts for secure real time transactions, develop proprietary shopping systems, customize the more common shopping systems, and develop CMS solutions. I recently completed the most powerful and easy to use CMS for just our clients and it's a become big hit. It's a family business we began in 1995, and in order to provide the best service at the best price for our clients in this economy, my income is not up there with other programmers although I'm very much experienced.

I must have gotten the wrong impression on this thread yesterday and might have been a little sensitive. It is important to understand where I'm coming from. I'm keeping CPF cost low by making a limited number of these at cost for components and materials and do plan to make up for development and tooling costs afterward.

The CFP quantity I plan to make is not determined but will probably be based more on how long I will be making them and how long it takes to make each one, but I'll do a minimum of a dozen CPF units. I haven't tallied the interest so far, and I can't expect to know how many CPFers are really serious until I figure out the cost. If you're new to this project, please don't get your hopes up because the total of costs will likely have you sleeping out on the lawn. I'll have a solid cost once the final prototype is done, and I'm pushing hard to get there.


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> ............................ It is important to understand where I'm coming from. I'm keeping CPF cost low by making a limited number of these at cost for components and materials and do plan to make up for development and tooling costs afterward.




This is a huge savings to CPF members, my guess is multiple thousands of $'s per CPF unit. I truly appreciate your generosity!


----------



## langham

I know the savings are huge, but the only way you are going to get me to buy one is if I win the lottery or get a divorce.


----------



## TEEJ

langham said:


> I know the savings are huge, but the only way you are going to get me to buy one is if I win the lottery or get a divorce.



Statistically, If you win the lottery, they tend to divorce you and take half. Hopefully it leaves enough to afford a deeply discounted light sword.



Obviously, Plan A is to just get a divorce proactively, and, after its settled, win the lottery...and buy any lights you want.


----------



## one2tim

TEEJ said:


> Statistically, If you win the lottery, they tend to divorce you and take half. Hopefully it leaves enough to afford a deeply discounted *light sword.*
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, Plan A is to just get a divorce proactively, and, after its settled, win the lottery...and buy any lights you want.



always wanted a light sword


----------



## AceDan

Evening all. 

Any pictures of the bulb at all? If that's what you can call it.


----------



## Ceya!

GL, 

Thanks. Old injuries.

I just want to see the final product in real time operation.

So far we have been getting the base done and tweeking it out.

This is the fun part of the build. Once I read what I have missed I'll hadd questions, ideas.

I am just thrilled to see how far our ideas in GL project is moving.

GL, Thanks for having this wonderful get together.

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## get-lit

I missed some earlier posts so I'll respond...

TEEJ, There is a rubber pad on the back, I supposed I could add one to the rear lip of the front bezel.

Ceya, I believe I've posted a drawing of the front earlier in the thread.

AceDan, the lamp is custom made, although I've had three lamps made so far, this is the only pic I have. It's a TC lamp with probes embedded into the seals, the seals are molybdenum foil which allows the lamp to be much smaller than other lamps of comparable output, it's also a DC lamp for increased efficacy and arc stability, and this is the Anode end, with threads for the retro-reflector to screw onto and the retro-reflector is shimmed with very thin washers, the Cathode end (not shown) is actually larger because the lamp mounts at that end, the envelope has to be round so that it's surface does not deflect the light from the source. I'll have to take a pic of the lamp with mounted retro-reflector soon.


----------



## LuxLuthor

get-lit, maybe it would be easier to estimate the price of this in ounces of gold !!! 

Like many, I can't believe what you are creating--but love it, and would look towards getting one if possible. 

That last image brought to mind some sort of di-lithium crystal.


----------



## get-lit

..close, it's the Omega Molecule you're seeing there


----------



## Patriot

LuxLuthor said:


> That last image brought to mind some sort of di-lithium crystal.



I think that's what Get-lit has in mind for the eventual portable power source! :laughing:


----------



## TEEJ

Patriot said:


> I think that's what Get-lit has in mind for the eventual portable power source! :laughing:



The light sword might function as a propulsion system for interstellar travel.

Might have to call Cottonpicker to get more solar panels....


----------



## AceDan

get-lit said:


> I missed some earlier posts so I'll respond...
> 
> TEEJ, There is a rubber pad on the back, I supposed I could add one to the rear lip of the front bezel.
> 
> Ceya, I believe I've posted a drawing of the front earlier in the thread.
> 
> AceDan, the lamp is custom made, although I've had three lamps made so far, this is the only pic I have. It's a TC lamp with probes embedded into the seals, the seals are molybdenum foil which allows the lamp to be much smaller than other lamps of comparable output, it's also a DC lamp for increased efficacy and arc stability, and this is the Anode end, with threads for the retro-reflector to screw onto and the retro-reflector is shimmed with very thin washers, the Cathode end (not shown) is actually larger because the lamp mounts at that end, the envelope has to be round so that it's surface does not deflect the light from the source. I'll have to take a pic of the lamp with mounted retro-reflector soon.



Hi get-lit thanks for the info and pic. What's the size of the bulb, can't tell in the pic?


----------



## get-lit

While being just 6" long and 1.75" diameter with mounted retro-reflector, output is comparable to XBO 2000 lamps which range from 13.5" to 14.8" long! Can't tell you the weight difference as I don't have an XBO 2000.


----------



## get-lit

Editing...


----------



## AceDan

get-lit said:


> While being just 6" long and 1.75" diameter with mounted retro-reflector, output is comparable to XBO 2000 lamps which range from 13.5" to 14.8" long! Can't tell you the weight difference as I don't have an XBO 2000.



That really is a "NightSword". I just can wait much longer for more pics and stuff. Any chance of a intro with a video uploaded to YouTube?


----------



## get-lit

BVH and I are currently working on the internals, but have to wait a few weeks on my tax return before having the mandrel made for the primary reflector. Then I'll have a few primary reflectors made and several retro-reflectors made and all sent off for enhanced coating, and when I receive them, I'll post final beamshots and lux measurements. Should be interesting.


----------



## TEEJ

Its very taxing work I suppose....


----------



## get-lit

I'm actually more concerned about figuring out a quick way to solder all the wires to the tiny controller boards. Each one would be tedious and take me a long time to complete. Any ideas for having this done more easily?


----------



## TEEJ

get-lit said:


> I'm actually more concerned about figuring out a quick way to solder all the wires to the tiny controller boards. Each one would be tedious and take me a long time to complete. Any ideas for having this done more easily?



Is this the sort of application where you can use a mask and dip solder?


----------



## get-lit

I'm not familiar with such processes. This is the controller board for each light, needs to be lots of wires soldered to it...


----------



## TEEJ

The process would essentially involve dipping the board and wire ends into a tank of solder, with the parts you didn't want soldered masked off. Variations use a spray, etc.


I grabbed a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dip_soldering


----------



## shuen

GL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLNUwcz-Bt4
One side of board is dippedinto the tank of solder(or contact the surface of solder)

Wilson


----------



## get-lit

Thanks guys. I'm looking to use ribbon cable with connectors that are removeable from header pins so that just the controller board can be sent in for firmware updates, tweaks, turn-on sequence changes, etc, if ever needed.

The header pins would be easier to solder onto the boards than wire. How about *hot air with Solder Paste*? I see this is done with chips, but would it be a strong enough hold for header pins and removeable connectors?


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> The header pins would be easier to solder onto the boards than wire. How about *hot air with Solder Paste*? I see this is done with chips, but would it be a strong enough hold for header pins and removeable connectors?




Pins usual comes in a row, here with 2.54 mm between pins:





They are easy to solder with an ordinary solder iron and ordinary tin.
To use ordinary ribbon cable, you need to manual split the wires and crimp them in the connectors.


----------



## get-lit

I've combined 6 of the 8 fan wires together (2 Power, 2 Ground, and 2 Control) and gonna do away with the two rpm signal leads, since this will be closed loop via temperature.

Edit: programming the controller board is going well!


----------



## get-lit

Since the fan does not stop operating with zero PWM signal, going to need a relay to turn it off and on. The fan requires minimum 2.3A @ 12V and *this* is the smallest relay I could find. It's a SPST-NO (Single Post Single Throw Normally Open) configuration. The relay consumes 200mW (2.4W) and I'm hoping this is not being consumed while in the off position, otherwise it would be an additional drain on a battery when powered off while still plugged in. Also would consider a solid state relay, but they all seem to be way expensive for just shutting off the fan. Hoping someone may have some better ideas, or would happen to know what the relay's power consumption would be while in the off position...


----------



## TEEJ

get-lit said:


> Since the fan does not stop operating with zero PWM signal, going to need a relay to turn it off and on. The fan requires minimum 2.3A @ 12V and *this* is the smallest relay I could find. It's a SPST-NO (Single Post Single Throw Normally Open) configuration. *The relay consumes 200mW (2.4W)* and I'm hoping this is not being consumed while in the off position, otherwise it would be an additional drain on a battery when powered off while still plugged in. Also would consider a solid state relay, but they all seem to be way expensive for just shutting off the fan. Hoping someone may have some better ideas, or would happen to know what the relay's power consumption would be while in the off position...



I'm not an electrical engineer, so maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I thought a mW was 1/1000 of a watt?

So, 200 mW would be more like 0.2 W?

Where did 2.4 W come from? :thinking: (Something to do with stuff I don't know probably?) 


Would the fan be OK simply coming on with the light itself?

As in, if the power goes to the bulb, the fan is on? Is it that the fan would need a relay because running the juice from the "on switch" would be too much power for it to handle?

Would a simple "memory metal" that expands when hot to close a circuit work?


----------



## get-lit

I was thinking 200mA, hence the 2.4W. So it's 0.2W, hopefully less when in the off position. The fan has to remain on HIGH for a minute or so after the light is powered down to cool the lamp because the lamp suddenly releases a ton of heat when turned off, otherwise the sudden burst of heat is not healthy for the lamp itself and would fry the retro-reflector coatings within roughly 10 to 15 seconds.

Now I'm thinking the relay is just fine, but what is this memory metal?


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> Since the fan does not stop operating with zero PWM signal, going to need a relay to turn it off and on. The fan requires minimum 2.3A @ 12V and *this* is the smallest relay I could find. It's a SPST-NO (Single Post Single Throw Normally Open) configuration. The relay consumes 200mW (2.4W) and I'm hoping this is not being consumed while in the off position, otherwise it would be an additional drain on a battery when powered off while still plugged in. Also would consider a solid state relay, but they all seem to be way expensive for just shutting off the fan. Hoping someone may have some better ideas, or would happen to know what the relay's power consumption would be while in the off position...




Relay? What is wrong with a MOSFET transistor, it does not require any power to be on or off.
For this you will need two transistors, one P-channel power MOSFET and one small signal either n-channel MOSFET or ordinary transistor.

See figur 3 in this pdf for a schematic: http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Collateral/AND9093-D.PDF


----------



## get-lit

Was waiting for you to come along and school us in electronics again. So what good are relays when there's MOSFET transistors. Anyhow, thanks again HKJ, much appreciated!


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> Was waiting for you to come along and school us in electronics again. So what good are relays when there's MOSFET transistors. Anyhow, thanks again HKJ, much appreciated!



Relays are useful when you want isolation, but as long as you uses the same power supply for everything, the mosfet is ideal. Mosfet's are close to the ideal switch, the control input only need a low voltage, no current, to switch and they can handle 100's of amperes output current (Depending on model). This also means that you never leave a mosfet input open in a circuit (A finger with a static charger somewhere near it can turn it on), it must always be connected, this can be done with a resistor.


----------



## get-lit

Ok, I'll have to do some digging on this after I get further with programming the control board.

I had to enlarge the exhaust in order to reduce flow resistance while ensuring weather proof ability. This actually loses 1.5 MCP due to the extra diameter in the light path, but I feel it's necessary. Drawings in post *#314* are updated.


----------



## BVH

Oh no...not a loss of CP.


----------



## get-lit

Knew you wouldn't like it BVH, so I caved in and went 3/16" larger on the aperture diameter to make up for it. Drawings updated.


----------



## BVH

All Right!


----------



## get-lit

I've updated the exhaust for improved air flow. Drawings updated.


----------



## BVH

Man, that thing is Purty!!


----------



## get-lit

The improved air flow of the new exhaust allowed me to reduce the exhaust diameter slightly to recoup another 1 MCP. Drawings updated.


----------



## BVH

Are you also keeping the 3/16" larger aperture and if so, is it at about 61 - 62 MCP?


----------



## get-lit

It's still 11.25" OD with reflector at 10.875" aperture (not 3/16" larger), still around 61 MCP. I've applied the exhaust ventilation improvement to the intake now. As a result, the intake is more water resistant with improved flow, and the housing is stronger and slightly shorter. You may or may not like the new look as much, but it's much better functionally. Drawings updated.


----------



## BVH

Looks like you streamlined the back of the case with radial spaced cooling air intake slots instead of a fully exposed air filter if I'm interpreting the dwg right? Makes for a cleaner looking light! How will the filter be accessed? I see the placards are now on top in back. I think it looks great this way!


----------



## The_Driver

Could you re-post the link to the pictures? I can't seem to find it, the old ones are dead...


----------



## get-lit

Yes, same radial ventilation as the exhaust. And yes, the air filter is not fully exposed, good catch. The air filter requires more surface area than an open duct for flow, and since more surface area exposes the intake to more water, the air filter is recessed inside the housing to allow for more narrow slots. The air filters material is actually six separate strips, inserted into the slots. I'm currently assessing 6 vs 4 slots.

Edit: And yes, the warning icons are inline at the top rear. I figure we don't need to get too carried away with these since each light will have it's own turn on sequence as an electronic key which only each owner will know for their light.


----------



## get-lit

I promised a pic of the lamp with retro-reflector...


----------



## get-lit

The powers that be have thrown me a major hurdle! :sigh:

I performed a series of final tests with the retro-reflector and discovered something not so good. The lamp manufacturer has me keeping the anode and cathode temps under 350C, which one would think to mean the anode and cathode could be cooled by direct air upon the nickel lamp mounts. I just discovered this is not the case. For the anode, direct air must cool the glass between the anode lamp mount and lamp envelope (the bulb). Cooling the Nickel mount of the anode does nothing for cooling the anode.

So this means the retro-reflector can only be mounted on the cathode end of the lamp. And also since the lamp must be mounted by its cathode end, this means the retro-reflector must be forward facing instead of rearward.

Additionally, the cooling air is highly inefficient when blowing over the envelope and then onto the anode end, requiring 2.5 times the air flow as opposed to direct air upon the anode end without first hitting the envelope. This in-line cooling method also greatly lessens lumen output because in order to cool the anode enough, the envelope must be cooled first, and the envelope becomes much less efficient when it's cooled.

So this means that having a short optical housing with lamp protruding through the exhaust is highly inefficient and required tons of air flow, unless the entire large diameter of the optic housing were to extend beyond the lamp, rather than just the exhaust extending beyond the lamp, in which case the optic housing would be super massive and completely unbalanced, front heavy and requiring a second hand to hold it up. Plus it could not use the retro-reflector anyhow because the retro-reflector now must be forward facing.

So this means, if we want to have the extra beam intensity benefit of using a focal length that is beyond medium, and the benefit of a retro-reflector, I can't go with long focal length, I must go with short focal length.

I can achieve nearly the same beam power by going with a narrower and longer reflector of short focal length, with forward facing retro-reflector. It may seem like quite a setback, but I can use most of the same internals, while just modifying the air flow and reconfiguring the shape of the housing.

Edit: This will allow for good flood pattern when de-focusing, and the new air flow will not limit head wind speed to whatever the fan is capable of pressurizing against; headwind will no longer be limited. This will also allow for a smaller and lighter fan and smaller and lighter DC power supply, and smaller intake on the rear of the housing due to less air flow requirement.


----------



## BVH

While this seems like a disappointment for you, what really matters is beam power and a hand-holdable light and it looks like you can still do it. I have to go back and get up to speed on long, medium and short focal lengths again because I forget where you were versus where you're headed now. When you have time, could you post the beam calculator models again of the old and new models and maybe a simple sketch of how the two reflectors and lamp are positioned relative to each other in the new housing? I'm not quite getting it based on your description. You mention smaller power supply. Will you use a new, lesser power lamp and will it produce lesser Lumens? I'm trying to get my head around the Lumens versus beam power calculation again. If you can use a lower power lamp but get the same beam power, then is the lamp and reflectors setup more efficient? Or will the beam maybe be a smaller diameter but the same intensity? In the end, where is the new model in comparison to the NightSun? Lots of questions! I'm guessing the NightSun wasn't originally developed in it's current configuration. Great machines take time to develop.


----------



## get-lit

Hadn't gotten much sleep. To answer your questions... Staying away from medium FL, in either direction, will generate gains to make the light more powerful than the Nightsun. Short FL becomes the only option with these cooling requirements for the lamp.

Still using the same lamp and ballast... the DC power supply for the fan is what I was mentioning could now be smaller and lighter, as well as the fan itself, because now there is no concern about the fan having to pressurize against head wind. The intake can now be smaller due to much less air flow requirement, which will require less room for air filter media and air/water separation volume.

I'll post beam models this afternoon, as well as diagrams comparing the reflectors and lamp positionings as you're asking about. 

The beam will be more graduated in intensity, with a smaller brighter hot spot, much like the MaxaBeam, and my goal is to generate equivalent beam power in a short FL configuration as the long FL configuration had. If I pull some good tricks by really optimizing the optics for the lamp in a short FL configuration, this could be just as powerful as the long FL configuration, or at least 90% as powerful.


----------



## BVH

Gotcha on the smaller power supply for fan, using same lamp, lamp PS. Could the diff in beams btw the LFL and SFL be described as follows:

Long Focal Length. Let's say the beam (without any corona/spill) is 10" in diameter at 50' out. Lets take a cross section view. In that view, we see nearly a uniform brightness in the entire 10" circle. And lets say that brightness is a relative number 10.
Short Focal Length. Same conditions When looking at the cross section, we see a brighter center tapering to a still bright, but less bright outer section. The center is a relative 13 and the outer is a relative 7 in brightness.

But overall lumens in the beam are the same or nearly the same for both scenarios.


----------



## get-lit

My frustration has really pushed me with this. As it turns out, the worst case scenario of the options left will only be a 7.6% loss in beam power, but there's something I'm going to try that may actually be a 10.5% improvement in beam power.

Below are four comparisons, all relative in brightness to the brightest (I had to diffuse the images with indexed color so the beams would display proper gradient)...

1. Beam profile the of configuration which made *this beamshot*...





2. Beam profile of the optimized Long FL configuration that can't be used due to lamp cooling issues...





3. Beam profile of an optimized "Super" Short FL configuration with a few tricks...





4. Beam profile of worst case scenario with optimized "Super" Short FL configuration...





All four together...





Super Short FL Housing Mockup... (the reflector actually extends from the front of the housing to the center of the handle as shown)





Edit: As you can see, worst case scenario is the same peak luminance with slightly less overall beam power, and best case is an improvement touching over 80 MCP. Also, the housing is larger now, but I got fed up with the prospect of losing CP so I went bigger on the reflector and did everything I could to condense the space occupied by the other components.


----------



## BVH

You have a great way of portraying this very technical data to us laypersons! It took me only about 3-4 minutes to make all the 4 comparisons and it's all very clear. Making the housing bigger, in my humble opinion is the way to go. After all and not to put words in your mouth, I think you're after a super powerhouse light versus just a powerful light. And I am certainly not shy about voicing my desire for the "end all" hand held, NightSun killer Short Arc. Heck, I have to use two hands to handle my Costco 75 Watt HID. I am also starting to like the case profile design more than the original. Could you paste the NightSun model at the beginning for the 4 above models and add it to the 4-model comparison? I guess you could look at it this way, because of this hiccup, you're pushing the technology and performance envelope even more than before.


----------



## get-lit

Thanks BVH, the Nightsun would appear practically the same as the first beam profile of the four. Any slight difference between the Nightsun and the first profile would be imperceptible when compared against the other three.

The long FL was so optimized that it was very difficult for me to come up with a comparable performing beam with a short FL configuration. Getting those temp readings and losing out on that long FL design was like finding out your wife's been cheating on you. Not quite but it really was horrible to see those readings. I'm not about to be forced to change course without doubling down and coming up with something even better to look forward to. I can live with a larger housing when the diameter isn't absurdly large as if carrying a massive dish. That's how I justify it at least.

I'm presenting this design here and looking to some feedback before I fully commit my time and resources to it, as the new reflector and retro-reflector will have to have new mandrels made for them. The bezel diameter is 9.33", the housing length is 19", and the beam will be what's shown in the 3rd profile at best (80+MCP), or the 4th profile at worst (60+MCP). So what are your thoughts?


----------



## BVH

I feel your disappointment as I was totally and completely enamored with the long FL beam after seeing the difference in the Maxabeam and ACR RCL600 beam comparison I did a few weeks ago. It was a heavy blow.

The housing looks great and at 19", is only about 1.5" longer than the original Costco HID, which might be just a tad bit shorter than the typical "15mcp" Thor. When the exhaust extension was taken into account, I think the old casing might have been close in length also?

My one thought on the beam and much smaller spot is going back to the Maxabeam/ACR600 comparison or the Maxabeam/Megaray comparison. The Maxabeam spot is so small that even as close as 900 Yards, I really can't identify the large tree that I'm seeing as a tree whereas with the other two lights, it's very obvious due to their larger FOV, even though their spot is not as bright. In using your models above and if I'm doing this correctly, the beams central hot spot (not including the next two outer, very bright rings) on my screen is about 3/8" and there are 19 each, 3/8" units in the FOV, which is a total of 8000". So 8000" / 19' = 421" so would that hot spot be a diameter of 421" (35') at 3,280'/1KM?

My tree at 900 Yards is 82% of 8,000"/3,280' FOV so 421" x 82% = 345" or a 29' hotspot on my tree. So the NS central hotspot would probably completely illuminate the tree foliage. Then with so much more light on the target (as compared to the Maxabeam) and those two next outer rings in-play, which would effectively double the hotspot to 58', it might not be an issue at all to ID the tree?


----------



## ma_sha1

Sorry to hear this set-back, looks like you are limited to forward facing deep reflector?
You may still be able to add a retro reflector like Epson style, where it's barely bigger than the bulb chamber, should not affect cooling that much, they claim it adds 20%. 






Alternatively, Philips original UHP paper back in 1995? Had one prototype that just had half the bulb vacume deposited reflective layer, serves as retro reflector,
since you are going for custom bulbs, that could be an other option to ask them?


----------



## langham

Have you thought about using an internal circulation system and an external radiator to transfer the heat? This would make the light more water proof and I think you could find a way to make the original design work with 2 separate air circulation paths withing the light and you could block the access to the radiator to prevent severe burns, although I think that the air would also burn you. I think with this design you would have a total of 3 smaller fans rather than the one larger fan in your original design. With the proper larger surface area you could get a slightly more efficient heat transfer to the targeted areas, I think though without specifics I can not be sure. Have you tried using a copper wire rap around the area that needs to be cooled? I don't know that that would work with the optical effect though, just a thought. I think the new design is still awesome, but the old one was great because it was so small compared to the light output. Sorry to hear about how stressed you are, good luck with the re-design.


----------



## SemiMan

get-lit said:


> I'm not familiar with such processes. This is the controller board for each light, needs to be lots of wires soldered to it...




Not sure if someone you know can help you out with a custom PCB, but it would be a lot easier to make a conversion board that this little controller board could plug into and that had headers or board mount connectors for all your wires. That is likely going to be a lot less painful than soldering wires. Soldered wires tend to be brittle and prone to failure compared to mechanical connections.

Semiman


----------



## get-lit

BVH, with the super short FL configuration, the peak central hot spot would be 120 lux within a 238.22" diameter at 900 yards, with about 100 lux at 300" wide...






On the other hand, with the long FL configuration, the peak central hot spot would be 91 Lux within a 706" diameter, 59 lux within a 917" diameter...







I appreciate the suggestions ma_sha. I had considered the reflective inner coating before but that doubles the lamp cost, and the retro-reflectors are more accurate and re-useable. I think I could come up with s fix for the retro-reflector to allow for better cooling air flow access to the lamp seal.

Even if a more workable retro-reflector were realized, the larger issue with the long FL configuration is the inline cooling. The long FL causes the lamp to be located so far forward of the primary reflector that the only feasible way to enclose the lamp without a massive unbalanced housing is to enclose just the lamp itself in the exhaust beyond the aperture, which necessitates the inline air flow which causes heat from the envelope to over-heat the anode, even without the retro-reflector.

To fix this, I could go with a perpendicular lamp position instead of axial, just as the original tank light. But this configuration has low light gather, and it's a really funky design. If you wanted flood capability, the reflector has to move because the lamp mount has to be stationary, and a moving reflector makes for a much larger optical housing that has to be made with thicker material because it would not be reinforced with a fixed mount primary reflector. Peak intensity would increase to 80 MCP, but due to just 68% light gather, total beam power would actually be cut in half, so it's a no-go all around.

langham, I had put a lot of consideration over the years to those suggestions. In the end I decided that for a high power portable hand-held light, the extra weight and bulk would be better applied to larger optics and a minimal cooling method. I also couldn't find a source for any fans that could withstand the high temp inside, probably impossible.

My favorite alternative cooling method would be copper or aluminum rod at each lamp end, within a sealed optical housing where the rods extend outside of the housing for external cooling. The issue with this is that there would have to be some sort of high temp material that could seal the rods while allowing them to slide for focus movement, like a high-temp sealed sleeve bearing that can keep water out, unless of course the primary reflector is moved instead, which brings us back to the bulk and weight issue of a moving primary reflector. But even this wouldn't solve everything because the ballast must be air cooled as well. Additionally, I think the lamp seals themselves must be air cooled, not just the lamp bases. If the long FL configuration is really preferred, I'll consider some of this a bit more, but may have to go with the super short FL.

Here's the difference between the long Fl and super short FL housings...





It's a bigger overall size, but still smaller than the Thor you say? That might be just fine.

SemiMan, I think the header pins will work out well.


----------



## BVH

I pulled the Costco out of the cupboard to get better measurements. It's 16" long, the body with handle (no legs included) is 9.25" tall and body width is an average of 6". I think the 10 MCP Thor was just a tad shorter and I think the 15MCP version was just a tad longer. So about 3" longer than my Costco and maybe 2" longer than the 15 MCP Thor, which is not bad at all.

Both my 600 Watt M-134 minigun and 925 watt Marconi lights use what I think you are calling in-line cooling. In the minigun, air is cooled at the back, then sent out to the perimeter of the "can" then drawn back to the center at the front and then rearwards and over the lamp, Cathode-to-Anode. Would some closeup pics of those systems be of any use? Both use dual fans and a heat exchanger so that the system inside the light is weather tight. I would imagine that without using the second fan and the heat exchanger, just a single inline, "total loss" fan, that it would be more efficient. The 925 Watt Marconi fan is about 3.5" - 4" and the 600 watt is maybe 2". The internal fans in both lights are very loud/whiney as you may have heard in one of my posts on the Marconi's. Both of them have very long "Volutes" if that is the right terminology so maybe that signifies high pressure?

My recollection is that the guys at ARC said in general that lamp temps should never be above 250C max. That is also the max temp for the Cermax type of short arcs.

Given a perfect world, I would prefer the 91 Lux, 56-foot wide spot at 900 yards versus the 120 Lux, 20' spot. But I've had the luxury of seeing the Maxabeam (Short FL) and the ACR RCL600 (longer FL) side-by-side on my 900 Yard tree. Until I saw that, I would have always chosen the higher CP spot. But practicality must prevail in the real world.


----------



## get-lit

I'm having a hard time following your description of the cooling of those lights. Can you post pics?

Edit: Never mind BVH, I think those lamps can be cooled in that manner because the envelopes can't be over cooled from too much direct air to the envelope due to being Xenon gas. With those lights, air can be blasted fast enough over the envelope for the air to still remain cool enough to also cool the anode after, without over cooling the envelope.

With this lamp however, the gas is Mercury, which makes it much more efficient by producing more light and less heat, and the envelope can be over cooled with too much direct air to the envelope. Due to this, blasting air fast enough for the air to remain cool enough after the envelope to also cool the anode would over cool the envelope before beginning to cool the anode. It's just a limitation that comes with three times the efficiency.

Also.. I'm looking into perpendicular lamp orientation again, turns out the beam profiler is not capable of doing perpendicular orientation without some re-writing, working on this now. There may be some possibilities.


----------



## BVH

Ah, OK, did not realize the cooling on Xenon vrs Mercury was different. After all this discussion about long versus short FL, I'm sure my 60" Carbon Arc was a LFC. The mirror had extremely little depth, much like your first design. IIRC, the Negative rod was approx 10" long and it had to be inserted btw the rod clamp and the mirrror so there was another 12" making the total about distance from Cathode tip to mirror about 22" for a 60" mirror. Does that fit in the LFC category?

The VSS-3 uses the Axial configuration but the reflector does not move fore and aft. They used a motorized wedge and simply shoved the wedge underneath the reflector to deform it for "flood" mode. The VSS-1 used a perpendicular lamp system and had three shields that it could swing in between the lamp and the reflector to create "flood" (used frosted glass), IR (used IR glass shield) and the 3rd - I don't remember but it must have been non-transparent to shut off all light.


----------



## get-lit

The carbon arc is long FL, all the big search lights are.

I really like the motorized wedge to deform the reflector for flood. That would solve the thin ring of light issue with high etendue lights like these. How does the reflector retain it's focused shape after being deformed repeatedly? The VSS-1 solution is also very interesting with the frosted glass. I wonder why they went to the motorized wedge from the frosted glass. I'd like to know more about these .

Edit: This post has been corrected.. there's a parameter in the calculation that I forgot to update that would account for the reflection of the source dimensions as it's rotated around the parabola for perpendicular orientation as opposed to axial orientation. I will update when this has been accounted for.


----------



## langham

If this thing is twice as bright in a spot as the last version that you said would cause instantaneous blindness at anywhere near it and probable death if done for too long, what will it do? I don't guess there will be any ceiling bounce tests for this. I think that the copper idea was probably the best solution for the heating problem, but if you think that you can get double the CP then go for it. Have you looked into the systems implemented on the very large fresnels for their flood? Those should be the standard for smooth usable flood and creative methods of implementation, there may also be some good information for creative cooling, I know they get up to 18,000W and that would require a lot of cooling. I hope you come up with a creative solution you are happy with, will be checking in to see your progress.


----------



## get-lit

I'm correcting my post... there's a parameter in the calculation that I forgot to update that would account for the reflection of the source dimensions as it's rotated around the parabola for perpendicular orientation as opposed to axial orientation.

Edit: It appears perpendicular orientation long FL may produce just about the same beam as axial orientation long FL, just by very difference means. I'm going to order a cheap aluminum 12" diameter 3" FL reflector to confirm this.

If we could use one these alternate ways to flood the beam which BVH mentioned, this could just work out.


----------



## get-lit

I see that the VSS-1 and VSS-2 searchlights use air-to-air heat exchangers and so I did some reading up and found that it's a not something for portability. At best, a heat exchanger that would work for this would be heavier than the light itself and almost as big. Direct forced air like the Nightsun is the only way.

EDIT:
I'm going with perpendicular orientation with the lamp. Very little has to change with the overall design, just a slightly different lamp mount, same reflector but with different dimensions to optimize the different light gather, and just a change in the optical section of the housing. Overall construction will remain the same as already planned, same expected long FL output, but the front of the housing will look like this instead...






Reflector Dimensions: 11.5" Wide by 8.5" Tall, Housing: 12" Wide by 9" Tall.

The exhaust will still exit the front, but with perpendicular lamp orientation, the cooling will be very effective because the air flow to the lamp envelope will be blocked by the retro-reflector so that it will not be over-cooled, and the air flow will instead be forced toward the lamp ends to cool the seals. With this cooling method, the lamp will operate at optimum efficiency, and the fan will be quiet, except when pressurizing against head wind. Focus control and alignment will all remain the same. I read the technical manual for the VSS-3, and found that it does move the lamp to de-focus the light, and in addition de-forms the primary reflector slightly to diffuse the de-focused ring of light for effective flood. I'll be looking into implementing this feature as well.


----------



## BVH

Very close to the VSS-1 Butterfly reflector and dead-on for the ACR RCL600 reflector with regard to configuration (from a front view perspective, not FL and other specs) Unless you found definitive info in the -3 manual about the lamp moving and let me know, I will unwrap mine and check it out. When I saw your post, I at first thought I remembered seeing the lamp moving mechanism but then the more I thought about it, I think that I recently traced that mechanism to the system that moves the Infra Red shield that surrounds the lamp, in and out. I had thought for many years that the lamp moved and surprised myself once I finally traced the movement mechanism to the shield. Not saying that the forgoing is correct. I need to unwrap my -3 and check it out.

I just found the paragraph in the manual. It does move. I think it moves both the lamp and the wedge mechanism at the same time and that is what I might be remembering.

I always wondered about how much actual loss there is in the VSS-1a and ACR RCL600 by chopping the top and bottom off? Is that a lot of non-critical light gathering footage?


----------



## get-lit

I hadn't looked at the RCL600 or the VSS-1 for this, it came as a result of the lamp's luminance profile when orientated perpendicular to the reflector axis, because there's no luminance along the axis of the lamp. I have no idea why the RCL600 does the same.. it's lamp is axial to the reflector and the cutouts in that case just lose light gather. In any case, the shape here is derived strictly from the luminance profile of the lamp.


----------



## BVH

OK, that makes perfect sense for the VSS-1 and other vertically mounted lamp lights but not the RCL. I'm guessing that since the entire reflector, focus mechanism and reflector mount all pivot up and down inside the searchlight head housing on the RCL and that there isn't much "vertical" room inside there, they chopped it for physical clearance reasons.

Oh, and forgot to say how pleased I am that the vertical orientation will allow the Long FC reflector!!!!


----------



## get-lit

The specs for the parts you're making will obviously have to change. I'm going to take a bit of time to relax after all this now that I've come up with a solution, and then I'll send you updated specs. Thanks for the help BVH!


----------



## BVH

No problem at all on spec changes for the parts. I'm just excited to be able to make some of them. And I edited my post above after you posted to say that I am very, very please that you can go back to the Long FL reflector!!!!

Now we'll be able to carry around a Hybrid super light that has some genealogy based on the NightSun and the VSS-1


----------



## IlluminatedOne

I wondered if having the bulb water cooled like the imax bulbs would help having water jacket around the ends of the lamp, you would have to add a pump and a radiator but may be a solution. 

On this thread shows using a small water pump to cool a few hundred watts of LED. 
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...adlight-formerly-quot-flying-searchlight-quot

Great project by the way been reading it from the start .


----------



## BVH

A disaster waiting to happen in my opinion. Good chance that no one would make a custom one for less than 1000's of units. Then you have the issue of finding the right coolant with dielectric properties. Ask the guys with the AN/TVS-3's about liquid cooled Short Arcs. Quite a big problem.



IlluminatedOne said:


> I wondered if having the bulb water cooled like the imax bulbs would help having water jacket around the ends of the lamp, you would have to add a pump and a radiator but may be a solution.
> 
> On this thread shows using a small water pump to cool a few hundred watts of LED.
> http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...adlight-formerly-quot-flying-searchlight-quot
> 
> Great project by the way been reading it from the start .


----------



## get-lit

BVH, this lamp is capable of up to 350C. I've seen some new Philips "Gold" lamps capable of 500C.

Thank you IlluminatedOne. I really would like to do something like that to allow more lamp positioning versatility, but repeated tests over the past few days all reveal that absolutely nothing will work except direct air to the lamp seal between the envelope and the mount. I'd even threaded a massive 2 lb copper heat sink onto the anode mount with air blowing directly only onto the heat sink, and it had no affect whatsoever. A molybdenum seal is just a different beast.

Not only does the air have to be blown directly onto the seal, it has to come from a direction that hits the seal before the envelope, otherwise the envelope heats the air before it can cool the seal.

Additionally, the retro-reflector must have air blown directly onto it's reflective surface or it will vaporize leaving a discolored dark finish. Just burned up the second retro-reflector attempting other cooling methods.

It's just the cost of attaining 90 lumen/watt efficiency instead of 30, but under these stringent conditions everything consistently runs perfectly. Lamp seal temps remain constant under 250C with very little air flow, leaving 100C to spare, the fan would be practically inaudible inside the housing. Get something slightly improper with the cooling configuration and hurricane wind won't fix it.

All of this can be accomplished with the perpendicular orientated long FL configuration.


----------



## BVH

That's good info to know about 350 and higher "C" lamps. I love learning new stuff like this.

I'm using the down time to finally find and fix my low but audible bearing growl noise in the lathe headstock. It occurred when only the motor and a single shaft was running and I could not pinpoint btw the two. So got a new motor and that was not it. Got the headstock input shaft out and the bearings all feel somewhat rough and I think that will be the issue. Got the new bearings but am lacking one exterior seal which will be here Tuesday. Not sure why they failed in just over a year and very low time usage.


----------



## get-lit

Hope the fiberglass didn't do it!


----------



## BVH

No, no. This began out of nowhere about 6-8 months ago. A slight noise and vibration which also affected the look of the finished cut.


----------



## ma_sha1

get-lit said:


> Here's the difference between the long Fl and super short FL housings...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bigger overall size, but still smaller than the Thor you say? That might be just fine.
> 
> .



Get-lit, The Long FL version is much more attractive looking than the Thor like short FL version. I've had a couple of the Thor like hosts, but sold them w/o doing anything with it, I couldn't tolerate the look & size of it. I am still trying to save your long FL plan, The long FL design is such a beauty, the short FL version looks like a car vaccum, sorry, I am a bit obsessed on the looks 

FYI, Swan Blaster was long FL before it become short FL. I mounted fan in the center to blow on the retro-reflector.

If you design the Retro reflector either Epson style or with some holes/ channels, combine your existing design with a front mounted fan, you may be able to achieve anode & cathod cooling independently from both ends?


----------



## get-lit

Thanks ma_sha. I'm doing everything I can to retain the long FL beam profile and compact housing, and the direction of the current design *is* actually the long FL housing you prefer, but with a wider but height-trimmed reflector and optical housing to accommodate perpendicular lamp orientation. All I have to do at this point is confirm my estimations that such a configuration is as powerful as the axial orientation long FL because the beam profile program is unable to do this directly unless I spend time modifying the program to do 180 times the amount of processing. I'm confirming my estimations with a cheap aluminum reflector I can use to make two output tests, each relative to the other configuration.

If the perpendicular-orientated long FL configuration is not as I estimate, I'll look into the fan solution you describe. I had considered it before, but I figure that a simpler solution should be used IF it could be had. There's two additional issues with the fan on the anode. Firstly, I'm unable to locate temp tolerance specs for any fans out there, as the temp would we very high when isolated in an extension tube to contain the extra length of the anode protruding from the front of the aperture. Keep in mind, the air can not exit through the extension tube when the lamp is axial, or it would draw super hot air from the envelope toward the anode seal and overheat the seal. The air can only exit at that location if the lamp is perpendicular so the air hits the lamp ends before the envelope. Secondly, I don't know how I'd electrically isolate the fan wires from the 50 Kv ignition. I could insert them through Teflon tube near the lamp. Please let me know if you have any suggestions in mind for a high temp fan in case the perpendicular-orientated long FL configuration turns out to be not up to par performance wise. Also, with an axial orientation, without air exiting that location, I'm also concerned the retro-reflector may not hold up without air being drawn directly through it. Finally, since the air flow would have to exit the housing from another location with axial orientation, there would be some additional bulk to the housing to maintain air/water separation at a new exhaust location.

At this point I'm keeping my hopes up, and do expect that the perpendicular orientation will turn out well. If I get tired of the wait for the cheap test reflector, I may end up modifying the program to fully accommodate perpendicular orientation, but trying to resist because it's 3 to 4 hours of additional programming.


----------



## AceDan

Can I buy one yet?


----------



## TEEJ

AceDan said:


> Can I buy one yet?



LOL

You keep quite back there and stop asking if we're there yet...Don't make me pull over.....


----------



## AceDan

TEEJ said:


> LOL
> 
> You keep quite back there and stop asking if we're there yet...Don't make me pull over.....



Teej, I wanna shine it on the international space station. It's good to share


----------



## get-lit

Good one TEEJ 

AceDan, the range will only be about 5 miles.


----------



## AceDan

Get-lit, really looking forward to it. Watching as it progresses. Good work.


----------



## BVH

Now children, behave back there or I'll have to come back there and........

Had to make my 5000th post here in this thread.


----------



## AceDan

It's all in good spirits. Just can't get over the Night Sword pics. Certainly going to give the wow factor for many miles around.


----------



## TEEJ

Hmmm.... your best shot at the ISS would be ~ 250 mile range....


So if we have ~ 5 miles to 0.25 lux, that means when it slams into the ISS, it will be at ~ 0.0001 lux?



I think there are some CPF sub-lumen fans who might complain that might be too bright.


----------



## get-lit

That would be 1 Lux @ 5 Miles, 1/4 Lux @ 10 Miles, .00037 Lux @ 250 Miles (about the brightness of a star).


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> That would be 1 Lux @ 5 Miles, 1/4 Lux @ 10 Miles, .00037 Lux @ 250 Miles (about the brightness of a star).



That's still very impressive!!


----------



## TEEJ

get-lit said:


> That would be 1 Lux @ 5 Miles, 1/4 Lux @ 10 Miles, .00037 Lux @ 250 Miles (about the brightness of a star).



Even better!

So, if they shined it FROM the space station, WE could see IT!


----------



## get-lit

Yes, and the beam would be 10 miles wide from that distance.


----------



## get-lit

I've almost completed the design transition to perpendicular lamp orientation and it's all looking fantastic. I'm excited to have made some other further improvements as well, including better weight balance and significantly changed the air intake. The air intake has two filter stages with materials of different surface tensions and porosity to handle water vapor/mist and then to handle dust and debris. Both stages will be contained entirely inside the housing. The outer stage will be a washable steel wire mesh mist eliminator/snow block, and the inner will be a washable/replaceable air filter for the dust and debris. I've also improved the intake's air/water separation ability. Water can now be sprayed directly onto the intake holes from any direction and it will not enter the inner housing under any orientation. This is all accomplished in the same overall size and weight.


----------



## BVH

All Fantastic news! Can't wait to see some of the details and drawings! Lathe fixed so ready to turn and burn!


----------



## get-lit

I've completed the design transition to perpendicular lamp orientation. I've also modified the beam profile program to profile perpendicular orientation. There's much more involved computational wise with perpendicular orientation, and I had to include a 15% margin of error. When profiling the planned configuration, I'm not satisfied with the results compared to axial orientation when centered within the 15% margin of error. At this point, I will have to wait for the cheap reflector to arrive to compare. At best, the perpendicular orientation will be equal to the axial, but odds at this point tip toward axial.

If perpendicular is not up to par, there will have to be a high temp fan somewhere that could be used to cool the anode in the axial configuration and I would't know where to look. Any suggestions while I wait for this test reflector?


----------



## ez78

Amazing project, get-lit! How small should the fan be? I found some high temp fans. Or atleast fans with operating temps mentioned.. In the links below they seem to have fans ranging from 105C to 150C.

http://www.sofasco.com/acaxial.html
http://www.beatson.co.uk/wp-content/uploads//2010/12/small-high-temperature-fans.pdf

The 150 degrees celsius duct fans seem kind of big with minimum 120mm diameter.

EDIT: Also found a study paper on a high temp fan prototype or something. The abstract gives some general picture of what is available on the market.
http://www.pes.ee.ethz.ch/uploads/tx_ethpublications/26_High-Temperature_IECON2011.pdf


----------



## get-lit

Thank you ez78! That's a lot more than I was able to find. I think the impossible is needed here because the fan would also have to be tiny and I'd somehow have to isolate it from the high voltage ignition right next to the anode. Highly unlikely.

I just thought of another idea. I could have a separate high-pressure low-volume fan circulating cool air from the electronics housing directly onto the anode seal, though a small diameter tube, passing from the electronics housing, to the bottom of the reflector, then up to the anode seal. There would be a slight loss of light (1.5% to 2.5%) from the tube blocking the path of the light in front of the reflector, but this would enable axial orientation with proper anode seal cooling. That slight blockage of light would just have to be considered the expense for having the most efficient light output with the most optimized configuration. So far this is the best solution I could come up with if axial long FL ends up being the only way to go.


----------



## BVH

A ducted fan discharge system. Sounds like a good solution possibility. Fingers crossed!


----------



## get-lit

Did some experimenting and found that the extra ducting is possible, but it adds complexity, bulk, weight, etc.. the perpendicular orientation is a cleaner overall design. So I'm very much hoping for perpendicular. The beam profile appears as a slightly de-focused version of the axial orientation, still about twice as good as the beamshot taken with the medium FL, but again there's a fairly large margin of error. The one thing I notice with the perpendicular orientation is how easily temps are managed and how stable the light output is. These are very important considerations. Will know soon enough.


----------



## BVH

Get Lit, what is the approximate CFM you're needing to run over the Anode seal? (Don't have anything in-mind, just curious.


----------



## get-lit

Well, there's two parts to this. The anode requires not CFM but air speed, and it only takes a light breeze to keep the anode seal cool as long as that air isn't coming from the envelope. However CFM is needed to turn-over the air volume within the optic housing. The turn-over rate correlates to the maximum permissible temperature within the optics housing. The higher the permissible temperature, the lower the required CFM. The formula for this equates to around 30 CFM, but only with good air flow onto the anode seal, otherwise even 90 CFM doesn't cut it. That's why most other high powered lights are so loud. They blow air from the envelope toward the seals, and must blow enough air to cool the envelope fast enough for the air to still remain cool enough to also cool the anode. This is workable with Xenon because Xenon envelopes don't get over cooled because they are less efficient, but the axial cooling is also inefficient, because the warmer the envelope can be without heating the seals, the more efficient, and white, the light will be.

With axial orientation, getting cool air to the anode seal first is only half the battle. The other half is keeping any other air flow from the envelope from being directed toward the anode seal. This is why the front exhaust is impractical with axial orientation, even though the front exhaust is a more efficient use of space because that space is not within the luminance profile of the lamp. Now turn the lamp for perpendicular orientation and that's the ideal space for air flow to cool the anode seal, but now the ideal space in accordance with the luminance profile of the lamp also shifts 90 degrees.

It's a catch 22, but optimal cooling takes far more precedence over luminance profile utilization because total lumen output greatly reduces with high air flow over the envelope, with easily under half the lumen output when using 90 CFM to blast the lamp axially, while also consuming more wattage, because the lamp just eats up the energy and spits it out as heat unless the envelope is able to reach a threshold temp. Effective cooling really is key.. louder is not better. The ideal setup would be whisper quiet to keeping the lamp happy and churning battery power into light output.

* EDIT:* I've almost completed the design for axial configuration with cool air flow to the anode seal and different exhaust and it's actually turning out fairly nice. At this point, I have a design for each configuration that I could be very happy with. Aside from the unsure beam differences as of yet, the the axial configuration will be somewhat louder, not because it's pushing more air volume nor consuming any more heat energy, but because it operates under higher overall pressure to maintain cool air flow to the anode seal with the smallest tube possible to minimize the tube's cross section from blocking the beam. A thin wall tube with 1/2" OD is sufficient, and will block 2.3% of the light, losing about 1.4 MCP, but gaining about the same amount because the cylinder to enclose the lamp portion extending through the front will be 2.25" instead of 2.75", because that cylinder can no longer be used as an exhaust, so beam output wise, nothing is lost with this configuration than before this whole cooling issue began. Also, it's pretty sick looking now, in a good way. Just looks mean. I look forward to posting drawings soon.

I've also been able to lower the handle position closer to the center of gravity for both configurations.


----------



## langham

If you use a rectangular ducting instead of a cylindrical tube you will see more air flow for a give size due to the higher volume to surface area in the rectangular design.


----------



## get-lit

Thanks langham. I had considered a rectangular shape with the narrow wall facing the reflector. I'm more concerned that the shadow would be clearly visible in flood mode, so I'm looking into rectangular shape glass tube for this.

*EDIT:* I've located affordable Borosilicate glass tube with plenty of rectangular sizes to choose from. With this, I can go larger on the size with minimal affect on beam output and flood artifacts, and would allow for less internal air pressure and noise.


----------



## langham

I like this idea, I also think it would add to the look of the light. I had an idea of using 2 lenses with a space between the 2 to cool the front end of the lamp with its original orientation, do you think that would be possible to do? You could set up the 2 separate paths for air flow like you stated that you thought about doing earlier, as long as the exhaust is the low pressure point of the system the air should mix well with in the reflector and leave through the exhaust, and the air would always hit the targeted area prior to hitting the areas of the light that require less cooling. I know what you mean with the CFM not mattering as much as the volumetric flow rate, which explains why you went with the 2 fans in series rather than 2 separate fans in parallel. Would lowering the internal volume of the light help to reduce the CFM requirement even less? The half-life of replacing the air in the body of the light would be greatly reduced and it would probably help with heat management if there was more material internal to the light.


----------



## get-lit

Lowering the internal volume would directly reduce the CFM required, however there's no internal air volume to be reduced.

There's two cooling stages, the electronics housing with a bit of heat from the ballast, and the optics housing which is just the volume forward of the reflector. The optics housing is the volume that needs the air turn-over and this volume can not be reduced.

The air in the electronics housing is pressurized, and needs to be ducted into the optics housing to direct air to cool where needed, primarily the anode seal and retro-reflector, secondarily the cathode.

I had considered a second lens to create an air duct to the anode seal, but since the glass has 92% transmittance and would cover the entire cross section of the beam, it would create a total 8% loss. If the duct area's cross section to the beam can be reduced to a small percentage of beam's cross section, we're talking miniscule loss.

I had also considered keeping the front exhaust and injecting air onto the anode seal. My concern is that the air from the envelope only has one way out, still over the anode seal. Also, half the air flow has to to directed onto the retro-reflector, which would then flow right over the envelope and then onto the anode seal. I will do some testing to see is this 50/50 mix of "envelope" air and "fresh" air over the anode seal may cool effectively while not over-cooling the envelope.

A second issue with the front exhaust with axial orientation is that there is only so much reserve pressure to be generated by the fans, and if much of it is used to pressurize the anode seal cooling duct, there will be little left to pressurize against head wind when needed. However, with the rectangular glass ducting solution, much less pressure will be consumed to pressurize air into the duct because it can be larger without blocking much light output. The concern about pressurizing against head wind is also eliminated if a dual side exhaust or rearward exhaust were used. Still, front exhaust is the optimal space in relation to the lamp luminance profile. I will know if front exhaust can be used after testing the 50/50 mix.

Glad to know you're following the the logic of the issues so well!


----------



## get-lit

...The exhaust must exit the front if this is to be hand held. When I consider the AZ nights where I'm from, this should be able to operate in 100F weather. In 100F weather, the very lowest I can keep the exhaust temp without obnoxious fan noise is 180F, and without a front exhaust, that gets uncomfortably hot around the hands in less than a minute. This limits the options. If the anode seal can not be cooled in axial orientation through a front exhaust even with a cooling duct providing 50% fresh air with 50% hot air from the envelope, axial orientation will be a no go.

Also, the second lens as langham suggested will not work because the entire optic housing would have to be extended another inch forward for the cooling air to reach the anode seal. Two lenses being an inch further forward would make the light front heavy. Instead, the cooling duct must extend out through the front of the single lens and into the front exhaust vent at the location of the anode seal.

Unfortunately I accidentally busted the lamp. The lamp is modified for temperature evaluation with thermocouple probes embedded at the lamp seals, and the glass is cut away where the probes are inserted. This makes the lamp ends extremely fragile and I must have gotten too carried away in the excitement when handling it in preparation for another test. So until a 4th one arrives, I get to look at a perfectly good anode and cathode with 980 hours left on it, snapped off at the lamp end. I do still have the second one that had its probe lead vaporized by being too close to the HV lead. It can no longer be used for temperature evaluations, but I can use it to compare axial versus perpendicular orientations when the cheap test reflector arrives.


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> ...The exhaust must exit the front if this is to be hand held. When I consider the AZ nights where I'm from, this should be able to operate in 100F weather. In 100F weather, the very lowest I can keep the exhaust temp without obnoxious fan noise is 180F, and without a front exhaust, that gets uncomfortably hot around the hands in less than a minute. This limits the options. If the anode seal can not be cooled in axial orientation through a front exhaust even with a cooling duct providing 50% fresh air with 50% hot air from the envelope, axial orientation will be a no go.
> 
> Also, the second lens as langham suggested will not work because the entire optic housing would have to be extended another inch forward for the cooling air to reach the anode seal. Two lenses being an inch further forward would make the light front heavy. Instead, the cooling duct must extend out through the front of the single lens and into the front exhaust vent at the location of the anode seal.
> 
> Unfortunately I accidentally busted the lamp. The lamp is modified for temperature evaluation with thermocouple probes embedded at the lamp seals, and the glass is cut away where the probes are inserted. This makes the lamp ends extremely fragile and I must have gotten too carried away in the excitement when handling it in preparation for another test. So until a 4th one arrives, I get to look at a perfectly good anode and cathode with 980 hours left on it, snapped off at the lamp end. I do still have the second one that had its probe lead vaporized by being too close to the HV lead. It can no longer be used for temperature evaluations, but I can use it to compare axial versus perpendicular orientations when the cheap test reflector arrives.



OUCH! That busted lamp part hurts!!! You answered a question I had thought about a few days ago about lamp life. It's a 1,000 Hr. lamp? You're still investigating both the Axial and Perpendicular orientations in the original housing configurations, right? And waiting for the reflector to arrive to do that?


----------



## langham

get-lit said:


> Also, the second lens as langham suggested will not work because the entire optic housing would have to be extended another inch forward for the cooling air to reach the anode seal. Two lenses being an inch further forward would make the light front heavy. Instead, the cooling duct must extend out through the front of the single lens and into the front exhaust vent at the location of the anode seal.



Did you use the same thickness glass as the primary lens? I was just thinking about a very thin layer of glass to serve as clear ducting, not a pressure boundary. It sucks that you messed up another bulb, progress is slow and expensive. I guess that is what you get for being innovative. Looking to the bright side I just got a new job after getting laid off in Oct. so I may be able to buy one of these eventually, probably not though, because I am still married. I may be able to convince her to let me buy one of these if I don't get my 32 speaker custom surround sound for my home theater, but I would rather have the theater; no offense. Could you post a picture of one of the bulbs with the specific areas that you need to cool and the areas that will be used for mounting and the areas that can not be cooled highlighted and labeled? I may be able to help more if I know more about the problem. Maybe you could also put on there or a different picture the 2 different mounting methods and how they achieve their cooling/ the problems with each? I really would like to help out, this seems like an extreme project that would serve for insane beam shots around the community for everyone who buys one. I would love to see this thing directly compared to searchlights and lighthouses. I could just show that beam-shot to anyone who asks me why I like flashlights without saying a word. After all a picture is worth a thousand words right?


----------



## get-lit

BVH... Yes, and very much hoping perpendicular compares well. There is a chance it will do well, and a very slight chance it will do better than I'm estimating. I'm planning now for each method so that I can move fast when I know which to go with.

EDIT: langham, we posted at the same time... Funny, home theater is my other passion, and the kids love it. Don't have 32 speakers lol, but went with two Monitor Audio GS60s, four GS10s, GSLCR, all bi-amped, and made a pair of 2 KW subs, and with 150" projection, it's much better than the cinema. I will be sure to post what you're asking this evening.


----------



## langham

Thanks, I plan on making a custom set of 7.2 channels with 2 tweeters a 6 and an 8. Then 1 12 on each side and 1 15 in the front and 1 in the rear, all using cross-over networks and custom made ported boxes to ensure each speaker is using its own optimum frequency band. I have noticed that a lot of flashaholics have similar interests outside of flashlights. I noticed that we posted at the same time and was not sure if you had seen the post. I look forward to seeing the results of what exactly needs to be done, and I am in a much better mood now that I am not constantly dealing with new companies to give me a job. I should have a much more clear perspective on the issues at hand and be more helpful than before. Do you have coefficients for heat transfer for the different materials used? Are you calculating this all out on paper or just experimenting? With the Q=mc(T1-T2) equation you can figure out these things prior to the practical application and then use it to figure out the efficiency of your heat engine. I suppose if you have these parameters from your test you could just figure out the "c" value by rearranging the equation since you have already performed thermal testing. After you try again you could then verify your results and make them more accurate, I am used to using water or steam in these calculations so I am not sure how air will differ I guess it will just be less efficient. I can do the calculations if you give me all of the specific parameters of the testing results that you have this far if you would like, but it seems like you have a handle on this sort of thing, and I wouldn't want you to give away anything too specific to allow someone to duplicate your results without putting in the hard work that you have obviously put in to this project so far.


----------



## get-lit

I'm not concerned about anyone duplicating, this is all the easy part, not much magic involved here. I'm using calculation and experimentation, and they have coincided very nicely.

The formula for required air flow for forced air cooled enclosures is:
CFM = (3.17 x Watts) / (Max Internal °F - Max External °F)

On the safe side, total system wattage is <= 1100. Light output is 250W, leaving 850W heat. Also on the safe side, 1/3 of that light gets absorbed into heat through the retro-reflector, primary reflector, and lens, adding another 84W of heat, so the total Internal Heat Load is 934W.

With a front exhaust, we don't have to worry about hands being near the heat, so the Internal Temp and likewise the temp of the exiting air can be higher, allowing for a lower CFM, less noise, and smaller ducting volume, air filter area, and air/water separation volumes for intake and exhaust.

If the exhaust were anywhere near the hands, the exiting temp should be under 140°F, and the CFM requirement would be:
(3.17 x 934) / (140 - 100) = 74 CFM

With a front exhaust, the exiting temp can be 260°F, and the CFM requirement would be:
(3.17 x 934) / (260 - 100) = 18.5 CFM

That's 1/4 the ducting volume requirement, air filter area requirement, and air/water separation volume requirements for intake and exhaust. It's also the difference between super loud and whisper quiet.

At this point I'm very much leaning toward perpendicular orientation even if there ends up being some beam power loss, because I believe that with axial orientation, even having just 50% of the hot air from the envelope hitting the anode seal after going through all the work to route 50% direct cool air to it, that 18.5 CFM requirement would jump to 50 CFM, and we'd lose half these benefits with somewhat reduced envelope temp, lumen output, and efficiency. When working with such high efficiency, this becomes a juggling act.

* EDIT:* Congratulations on the new job langham!


----------



## get-lit

I have good indication the beam profiling for perpendicular orientation is under-calculating the beam. I've made some adjustments to further optimize the reflector dimensions for the luminance profile of the lamp with perpendicular orientation. The reflector would now be 12" wide by 8" high. I'd also have to go with a flat ring bezel instead of the sleeve bezel because the sleeve bezel would not conform as well to the truncated shape of the aperture. The optic housing dimensions would be 12.75" wide by 8.75" high. The front exhaust shown below is the largest that would be required and may end up a bit smaller...


----------



## BVH

That all sounds promising and is good news! Because most of the short arcs I play with are pure Xenon, I've grown accustomed to the generally standard size and Lumen output that a lamp is as compared to its' Wattage rating. Then I see your 75,000 Lumen output lamp and how small it is in comparison and marvel at the difference in the two technologies. Then I remember that the Locator uses a Mercury Vapor, Metal Halide or one of those with some Xenon in it and how tiny that 300 watt lamp is in comparison to the the huge amount of light it puts out and how far it throws with just a 5" reflector. The Locator lamp takes a good 15+ seconds to come up to brightness. What are the characteristics of your lamp start up. Do all the "blended" gas lamps take a few moments to come up to brightness and is that why many searchlights/medical device lights use pure Xenon? They're willing to take the Lumens hit for instant brightness? What are some other reasons to choose one over the other?

If the perpendicular orientation works out, I'll be anxious to see the case profile dwg.


----------



## get-lit

The lamp takes 75-90 seconds to full brightness, but well under 60 seconds with the retro-reflector. During startup, voltage is determined by the heat of the gas. Amperage could be increased for faster startup, but if you double the amperage, the ballast would be about twice as large and heavy. Also, molybdenum seals can only handle so much amperage, maxed in this case. Other lower power lamps may startup faster because they can be fed the same max amperage with a smaller lamp with less gasses to heat up. But this lamp still has higher output during the same startup time, and it just keeps getting brighter. High power "mixed" gas lamps are less common because they are newer. The trade offs are typically the same as home theater projectors with P-VIP style lamps versus pure Xenon lamps: Efficiency/size/weight/portability etc. If this were pure Xenon, the entire it would have 1/3 the lumen output and the ballast would weigh 20 times more.

*Left to right:* 
1. Long FL Axial (Calculating to 59 MCP)
2. Long FL Perpendicular (may be slightly under calculating, coming to 64MCP but a bit fanned out compared to axial)
3. Medium FL (Same as these *Beamshots*)






* EDIT:* I'm now calculating with a bit wider luminance source width (1.22mm vs 1.0mm) to be conservative after the last attempts to measure the source width, so the numbers are slightly less now. Also, the axial configuration would require a larger front exhaust diameter to due to faster cooling air requirement for the anode seal issue, and that additional diameter slightly reduces the beam an additional amount.

You can see the predicted trade off with perpendicular vs. axial, still in a whole new league over the last medium FL.


----------



## BVH

The perpendicular shot looks like it's between the original Long FL on the left and the Short FL models posted previously. What is the FOV and Lux of the central spot at 900 Yards and what would the Lux of the "center 1/3 ring only (not the spot) " of the spot be at 900 Yards? After 15 seconds, what would the approximate percentage of brightness be?


----------



## get-lit

Yes but perpendicular is actually coming up brighter in the center than axial, whereas the Medium FL is much dimmer all around.

Long FL Perpendicular @900 yards:

95 Lux within 490" Diameter
45 Lux within 882" Diameter
22 Lux within 1213" Diameter
9 Lux within 1448" Diameter
1 Lux within 1895" Diameter

Long FL Axial @900 yards:

87 Lux within 764" Diameter
57 Lux within 927" Diameter
32 Lux within 991" Diameter
14 Lux within 1232" Diameter
3 Lux within 1321" Diameter

However, calculations for perpendicular may still have a sizable margin of error.


----------



## get-lit

A preliminary drawing for long FL perpendicular housing, handle is lower to center of gravity, some components moved rearward for balance; I know it looks crude but the finishing touches would be added, my inclination at this point is this very well may be it...


----------



## BVH

The "shadow" drawing looks like I had imagined. As you say, once you get the innards finalized and dress it up in color, it will be gorgeous as the original was. IIRC, the last iteration of the original style had the fan housing the same "diameter" as the rest of the body and the inlets were slots. Are you thinking otherwise at this point?


----------



## get-lit

The rear diameter is unchanged, and is slightly wider than the central width, which you can see with the rear profile posted a few pages back. The inlets are not slots at this point because of the improvements I mentioned in post #453, the intake can now handle direct water spray as opposed to rain water only, which I feel is important for marine use. It will also handle mist better, which is also important for marine use.

*EDIT:* The order has been put in for the primary reflector mandrel!


----------



## get-lit

Here's with carbon fiber and CPF decals. Also note that I've slightly off-centered the reflector axis relative to the reflector height to optimize reflectance of the lamp luminance.


----------



## BVH

Looking VERY FINE! Even more of a Sleeper than before!

Not sure I'm getting this but... "Also note that I've slightly off-centered the reflector axis relative to the reflector height to optimize reflectance of the lamp luminance." 

I see by the front view that the exhaust and/or retro reflector is about 12% higher than centerline. (by my crude screen measurements) Is the actual light point source not centered within the vertical dimension of the main reflector or is it that the physical lamp body is not centered? If the light point source is not centered, is it just a characteristic of the lamp and reflectors combo that yields more light by being off-center? Or maybe just the retro reflector is off-axis?

For those who are concerned about an inadvertent turn on of the light by a child or someone else, is there some small sliver of "time" forgiveness upon initial ignition and fire up where the amount of light will not do PERMANENT eye damage? I'm asking because you mentioned the 60+ seconds to full brightness.


----------



## get-lit

The source is still centered at the focal point of the reflector. The reflector is simply shaved less across the bottom than across the top. There is more light emitted toward the bottom of the lamp than toward the top. This is because the cathode is smaller than the anode, and the cathode blocks less light, which is then captured by off-centering the entire reflector upward.

Luminance increases gradually to full brightness during startup, so it will be virtually harmless luminance wise, in the first moments of ignition. A child nor anyone else without the knowledge of each light's turn on sequence will be able to turn on the light.


----------



## BVH

OK, I understand what you're doing now. A big milestone to order the mandrel!


----------



## get-lit

Yep, keep in mind axial vs perpendicular isn't determined yet. I'll wait to receive the first real reflector from the mandrel instead of the cheap aluminum to make the comparison.


----------



## get-lit

If going with perpendicular, the top and bottom will actually have to be shaved much less. I considered the gather of the luminance profile from the side, but forgot the front. Here's the side...







Here's the front, the the reflector will have to be taller to gather that lost luminance...






*EDIT:* Also just realized, since the retro-reflector flips the luminance profile for half of the light, the reflector axis won't be off-centered.


----------



## get-lit

I should be receiving a new thermocouple lamp next week so I can finish up thermal testing. Also getting a non-thermocouple lamp to do non-temp related testing so that the thermocouple lamp lasts longer for when I need it. As I refine the beam profiling for perpendicular, estimations keep indicating that axial produces a more powerful beam by upwards of 45% more. Perpendicular has longer source to reflection surface distances at the angles that count, so the estimations are very much at odds with my initial expectations. I think the discrepancy is due to two additional sections of the reflector surface that are not utilized with perpendicular orientation that I was not aware of previously. It seems clear that the thermal challenge would be well worth the effort, and I look forward to tackling it once I get the new thermocouple lamp.

Also, it's going to take about 6 weeks on the primary reflector mandrel, but I will be receiving a couple retro-reflectors to test with in the meantime. I have an idea for much improved cooling of the anode seal while also isolating the envelope heat from the anode seal. This involves making the retro-reflector mount itself an integral part of the anode seal cooling duct, rather than a hindrance, and also using the retro-reflector to block more of the envelope heat by making the opening at the mount end of the retro reflector nearly the size of the anode stem, instead of truncating air from the envelope toward the seal as shown in the photo of the last retro-reflector lamp assembly. This should really open up some real opportunity for axial orientation.


----------



## BVH

I don't like to see anyone go thur ultimately wasted work and I know it's a part of R&D but...I still have a big place in my heart for the more evenly gradated (is that the word you used?) Long FL, Axial mount beam that provides a larger and more evenly distributed spot down field and a more visually dramatic beam in the air. I am so glad I got that ACR RCL600 going or I probably would not known the difference. I think it will be so much easier to distinguish a tree-sized target at 900+ Yards with the bigger, more evenly gradated spot.


----------



## get-lit

I know the RCL600 was a game changer for you. The trend here has been converting old long FL lights to short FL, which made me really question my own preference for long FL. Gradated and graduated both seem to describe the difference, but what I think you prefer is not "even" gradation, but "less" gradation. Long FL outputs the majority of light near peak luminance, and short FL outputs only a small fraction of light near peak luminance. So short FL has a more gradated beam I would say. I think "even" gradation would mean it fans out from peak luminance to black smoothly without rings. Long FL is pretty much a single ring without edge fading, so it's gradation area is less and more abrupt. The secondary ring you see in the beam profiles is actually from the retro-reflector, because I added a degree of "misalignment" to be conservative in my expectations.


----------



## get-lit

A little more input please. There's two ways to go with the bezel...

The bezel can be a standard flat ring method like the Maxabeam, which bolts on from the front. This helps to reinforce the rigidity of the optical housing, and provides a tighter water seal for the lens against the housing. This method is thicker from the front and reduces beam power for a given housing diameter, as it would require a slightly smaller reflector diameter. Here's a link to a pic of the *Maxabeam showing the flat ring bezel*.

Or the bezel can be a sleeve method like the Nightsun, which slides over the aperture and bolts through the side (see Nightsun bezel below). This method does not reinforce the rigidity of the optical housing as much as the flat ring, and the water seal is not as tight as the flat ring because the seal is not pressurized by tightening the bolts, but by pressing the bezel against the housing when inserting the bolts into the side. So the pressure on the seal is applied by hand when installing. The seal would be thicker to compress to a water tight seal with less pressure. The sleeve bezel is thinner from the front, and so with the same housing diameter, the sleeve bezel can have a slightly larger reflector diameter, in this case providing about 5% more beam power.

Nightsun Sleeve Bezel...







Any preferences with this? Also open to other suggestions.


----------



## TEEJ

From your drawings, it looks like the light bezel won't be round though, more of a rectangular shape?

Anyway - Power Baby, POWER.


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> .......... Gradated and graduated both seem to describe the difference, but what I think you prefer is not "even" gradation, but "less" gradation.



Yes, precisely.

NightSun style bezel with 5% more cash back.....I mean more power.


----------



## get-lit

Ok, sounds good. TEEJ, the rectangular shape is if this ends up having the lamp in the perpendicular orientation for cooling purposes, but I'm striving to keep axial orientation for more beam power.


----------



## TEEJ

If worried about the strength of the bezel area, is it possible to just increase the outer mounting diameter with a reinforcing band, and slide the proportionally larger assembly over that, or, build more reinforcement into the end from the start, so that additional material for strength is simply superfluous?


----------



## ma_sha1

I like the Maxabeam style bezel better than the Nightsun Foreskin style, I think either way the housing will be slightly larger that the reflector,
I don't see why either way will affect performance? I no longer have a MB, but I don't remember that the bezel covered up any part of the reflector thou.


----------



## get-lit

It's not that the thicker bezel covers the reflector, it's that for a given housing outer diameter, the reflector can be larger with a thinner bezel. I also like the flat ring style bezel, but it's a compromise in beam power. I have a maximum housing outer diameter I'm willing to go before it just gets silly big. I think 11.5" housing outer diameter is the max I'm willing to go. With a 3/8" thick flat ring bezel, the reflector would have to have 10.75" aperture. With a .22" thick sleeve type bezel, the reflector can be 11" diameter, which would produce 5% more beam power with the same overall housing size.

I'm coimng up with a flat ring bezel thickness of 3/8". How thick is the Maxabeam Bezel?


----------



## BVH

I'll measure mine tomorrow but it's no where near 3/8 IIRC.


----------



## BVH

Maxabeam front window is .130 as measured with a digital caliper using a spacer because the glass is inset on one side. I'd say it's probably standard 1/8" size.


----------



## Ceya!

get-lit said:


> Here's with carbon fiber and CPF decals. Also note that I've slightly off-centered the reflector axis relative to the reflector height to optimize reflectance of the lamp luminance.



Getting better there.

If your going to have the format like in the rendering above then go for the Maxa beam bezel cover.

Good to see this still moving.

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## get-lit

BVH, I think you're measuring the thickness from the side. I'm referring to the thickness from the front, which I think is more like 0.6" thick for the Maxabeam.

I really prefer to stick with a flat ring type bezel if possible to minimize the thickness. If I use depth to reinforce the strength of the bezel, I can get thickness down to 0.3", possibly as low as 0.27", which would make it pretty much a non issue as far as beam power compared to the sleeve type bezel.

Also, after using circular cardboard cutouts to shape up the housing and get a feel for the largest portable size I'd go with, I may end up going with 12" outer housing diameter.

Let's say I get the flat ring type bezel down to .28" with a 12" outer housing diameter. The reflector aperture could then be 11.44". This would give a 7.4% gain in beam power over previous estimates, minus two percent or less for the anode seal air ducting.


----------



## BVH

OK, I'm following bezel ring thickness now. I somehow was thinking front window thickness.


----------



## BVH

Just measured - The MB bezel is sort of crenelated so at it narrowest point, it is 3/8" thick/wide and 1/2" wide at its' widest point.


----------



## get-lit

That's less than I thought, but still plan to make the bezel with more depth for strength in order to reduce the width, at least 0.3" or less.


----------



## Ceya!

Are you using ti screws and sleeves (anchor) for the front plate? 

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## get-lit

Screws are stainless steel, the least of concern. The rigidity and strength of the bezel is comprised of thickness, depth, and the material itself. My goal is to increase the depth and material strength in order to reduce the thickness for that incremental benefit in beam power. As far as material strength, I will have a mold made for a fiberglass or carbon fiber layup which would provide much more strength than injection molded chopped fiberglass or carbon fiber.

EDIT: I could go even thinner with a steel bezel, but the expense would be enormous to machine each part from thick 12" wide steel plate. Maybe it could be machined along a straight line first, and then bent and welded to form the bezel.


----------



## get-lit

Quick update.. BVH and I have been pushing through and progressing each day on the alignment and focus components. I think it's taken us both a bit by surprise the amount of planning it takes to set up for production but we're getting there.

I had a meeting today with the lamp manufacturer and two engineers. The lamps cost $500. I learned they actually put a lot of post work into each lamp. They serialize them, spec them out and record all specs on a data sheet as verification they are each within spec, including an X-Ray scan to verify arc gap, and then put them through various physical tests, and then a full power up test. I also really pushed for a shorter arc gap. They were reluctant before when I asked because they need to establish a different lamp warranty period. The lamps as they are have 1000 lamp life. I figure around 200 to 400 hours with the modified arc gap, which would make for over 80 MCP and a 35% increase in beam power. This is the 2nd meeting I've had with them, the first with the actual engineers, and this time around they are open to doing this. So there will likely be a choice for everyone between super short arc and long lamp life.


----------



## BVH

Not speaking for anyone else, but for me, 300 hours is a tremendous amount of actual operating time for this type of light. Truth be told, my 300 Watt Locator lamps are rated at 25 hours to 75% brightness and they cost anywhere from about $50 to $145, depending on when and where you find them. I have not worn one out yet and I've had Locators since 2007. Quite frankly, I don't really expect to wear out a Nightsword lamp but would buy a spare for "just in-case". $500 is a good price for a custom made, 1,000 Watt +/- Short Arc lamp, with or without shortened arc gap. Full speed ahead on the shortened arc gap!


----------



## get-lit

The Surefire Annihilator thread had me re-visiting the trade offs between laser and HID again and this is my assessment of under the current availability of laser modules...

The goal of the Nightsword is to place as much light as distance as possible in a portable application for a "practical" searchlight. It produces 46,000 lumen of white light in an 25.4 meter beam diameter at 1 km consuming 1000 watts.

When comparing the feasibility with current availability of lasers, an array of 200mw red, green, and blue laser modules could be used to produce the same amount of white light within a tighter beam diameter at distance, but would consume 3000 watts, would be much too dangerous to use as a search light due to coherency, would cost upwards of $50,000 even when using the cheapest available components from China, and would be completely useless after 4,000 to 6,000 hours instead of being able to just replace a lamp.


----------



## Davekan

Wow. That shows that with enough money, and knowledge, anything is possible. 

I like the other iteration. Lol.

Dave


----------



## get-lit

Ya, me to. Just received the new thermocouple lamp and extra non thermocouple lamp and can resume temp tests to finally determine if axial orientation is do-able.


----------



## get-lit

ma_sha1 said:


> You may still be able to add a retro reflector like Epson style, where it's barely bigger than the bulb chamber, should not affect cooling that much, they claim it adds 20%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alternatively, Philips original UHP paper back in 1995? Had one prototype that just had half the bulb vacume deposited reflective layer, serves as retro reflector,
> since you are going for custom bulbs, that could be an other option to ask them?



To recap, with my current retro-reflector design, forced air cooling of the retro-reflector reflective coating is not good for keeping the lamp envelope hot and transfers that heat to over heat the anode seal. A work around would be to minimize the air flow to the retro-reflector reflective coating to cool it just enough while having a separate air flow over the anode seal. The ideal solution would be to use a retro-reflector coating that does not require such cooling, and I'm interested in finding out if the vacuum deposited reflective layer in the UHP paper would work. The retro-reflector on the Epson E-TORL lamp doesn't have direct forced air cooling of the reflective coating, so I'd like to know more about this coating and see if this coating can be applied to the Nightsword retro-reflector.


----------



## get-lit

It turns out that eliminating the air flow to the retro-reflector is not the solution because the heat accumulates and overflows from around the retro-reflector and onto the anode seal anyhow. The solution is to have cooling air flow onto the retro-reflector, but then divert it away from the anode seal with a baffle, and use a separate baffle to direct non retro-reflector air onto the anode seal. This should eliminate the need for a separate anode seal cooling air duct over the lens. The design for this is complete for the retro-reflector/cooling solution and I have some testing to do, and then off to CNC for making lots of these. I'm working with the lamp manufacturer to assess the minimal arc gap we can go with to still have 200 lamp hours. We may be able to reach 100 MCP.

I will also be getting the new primary reflector soon and I'm getting exited to take some new beam shots with it.


----------



## BVH

100 MCP would be 1/8 the CP of my previously owned 60", 11,700 Watt Carbon Arc that weighs 3,000 lbs! That is a phenomenal achievement in a hand-held light!


----------



## get-lit

3,000 lbs with ballast?

Don't get too excited about 100 MCP, it's in the realm of possibility, but could be as low as 75 MCP. I have a concern that the beam calculator does not account for slight light deflection the from imperfect circular lamp envelope. It's circular but not perfectly. It's ever slightly elongated at the cathode end, which the long FL configuration relies more upon than the previous medium FL, so I really need to get new lux readings with the new reflector and finalize the minimal arc gap we can go with to be confident about final CP.


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> 3,000 lbs with ballast?



Yes, including the BALLAST  resistor that dropped supply Voltage from the high 90's down to 78 VDC at the rods.

Even a true 75 MCP is a phenomenal feat!


----------



## get-lit

As BVH is already aware, I'm using a DC gear motor with encoder to control focus, which somewhat simplifies the mechanics and provides for electronic Z-axis end stop adjustment.

Also, the flood hole will be so bad with this light that it's really just a thin ring of light. So I'm thinking about deflecting the reflector like the VSS-3 to cope with the flood hole. I have an idea how to do this using the same motor the focus piston uses. It shouldn't be too difficult other than figuring out the amount of deflection needed.

The VSS-3 has to use a very thick reflector because it relies on the reflector's modulus of elasticity to maintain its original non-deflected shape when returning to full focus. This makes it very heavy and requires a powerful motor. I'm looking to go the opposite route and use a thinner reflector with springs to return to original shape.


----------



## BVH

IIRC, the reflector is cast Aluminum (not 100% sure my memory is correct on this aspect) and is at least 1/8" thick at the front edge and tapers thicker going towards the aperture. Very beefy.


----------



## get-lit

Can you tell how much the reflector is deflected by the wedge?


----------



## get-lit

Also, what's the VSS-3 reflector aperture again? I need to know it's relation of aperture to deflection so that I can correlate the Nightsword aperture with it's anticipated deflection distance. If the deflection of the Nightsword reflector can be kept under 1/2" while being effective in reducing the flood hole, it's do-able, otherwise it would be a trade-off against candlepower, because the reflector aperture would have to be reduced in order to have enough deflection area within the same size housing.

*I realized how to very easily calculate the exact deflection distance to maintain a hole-less flood, so I don't need any VSS-3 measurements.*


----------



## get-lit

Here's a quick assessment regarding the reduction of the flood hole by deflecting the reflector...

Without deflection at all, a hole would begin to emerge with just a 1.6° wide flood. Not useful at all.

1/2" deflection is the maximum for not having to reduce the reflector size to still fit within the housing, but does not provide much flood hole reduction.

3/4" deflection would provide for a hole-less flood of up to 15° wide, and would lose 1/3 of 1% candlepower (very little) due to a slightly trimmed reflector to fit within the housing, and when continuing to flood past 15° wide, a hole would emerge, with maximum flood around 20° wide.

Any thoughts on the how much usefulness deflection would add to the light?


----------



## TEEJ

If by deflection you mean the ability to flood (As the result)....sure, that could be useful. What would the change in cd be with the change in angle?

I'm not clear yet on if the percents you are using are the amount of deflection, or, the beam angle resulting from it? IE: You mentioned 15º wide flood, that sounds like a 15º beam angle, from 3/4" of deflection....correct?

So, using a 15º beam angle, what would the cd be?




My personal use for a the light would be disaster response if I thought it could be deployed w/o boiling brains/blinding people, etc. A wider beam could ease the retinal searing issue a bit when the targets are closer, and allow me to see more at a time at closer ranges, etc.

Otherwise, I'd just use a floodier light to start with for closer ranges, and the Sword for long range only, etc.


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> 3/4" deflection would provide for a hole-less flood of up to 15° wide, and would lose 1/3 of 1% candlepower (very little) due to a slightly trimmed reflector to fit within the housing, and when continuing to flood past 15° wide, a hole would emerge, with maximum flood around 20° wide.
> 
> Any thoughts on the how much usefulness deflection would add to the light?



I see no issues for me going with the 3/4 deflection and 15 degrees before the doughnut hole appears with only a .75% CP loss.

What would 5/8" deflection yield?


----------



## get-lit

TEEJ said:


> If by deflection you mean the ability to flood (As the result)....sure, that could be useful. What would the change in cd be with the change in angle?



Normally I refer to deflection as offsetting the lamp to create flood, but here I'm referring to bending the reflector to reduce the flood hole. Of course flood greatly reduces the candlepower, but only while in the flood position.




TEEJ said:


> I'm not clear yet on if the percents you are using are the amount of deflection, or, the beam angle resulting from it? IE: You mentioned 15º wide flood, that sounds like a 15º beam angle, from 3/4" of deflection....correct?



Correct.


*Important:* After experimenting with some of the large reflectors I have, I'm finding that *1/2" is the maximum safe bending distance* without permanently deforming the reflector. If it's bent beyond 5/8", the reflector slightly but permanently deforms and can not be bent perfectly back into shape with the use of springs etc, because the deformation is not evenly distributed about the diameter of the reflector. Reflector thickness has to increase in order to increase the bending distance without permanently deforming it. This involves the reflector's yield strength, plastic deformation, and Hooke's Law. The VSS-3 can bend a lot because it's a very thick and heavy reflector.

But this light has to be light weight, so it's limited in it's flood hole reduction through the use of reflector bending. Bending 1/2" will give a hole-less flood up to 12° and reduced flood hole beyond that, more like a flood hole assist than a complete solution. It wouldn't take a lot more work to do this, but it would slow down the focus speed because the motor would have to be geared down.



TEEJ said:


> So, using a 15º beam angle, what would the cd be?



Since we're now talking 12º, it would be 2.6 MCP at 12º without flood hole reduction (ring of light). With flood hole reduction, it would be around 1.5 MCP at 12º flood.

* EDIT:* I'm finding that this flood hole "assist" would put the light on par with the Nightsun SX16 as far as flood useability, still not as good as the MaxaBeam, but much more useable than without. Without, it's just a ring of bright light.


----------



## BVH

It's difficult getting used to the idea of intentionally bending a high precision, high-dollar reflector. Too bad you couldn't get 6 degrees before the doughnut hole.


----------



## Patriot

get-lit said:


> but could be *as low* as 75 MCP.




Yeah, but can it beat a Surefire Annihilator!?!


----------



## get-lit

BVH said:


> It's difficult getting used to the idea of intentionally bending a high precision, high-dollar reflector. Too bad you couldn't get 6 degrees before the doughnut hole.



I know what you're saying, and that's why I've spent a lot of time learning about elastic deformation, plastic deformation, yield strength, and Hookes Law. The key is to bend within the material's range of elastic deformation, but not reaching it's point of plastic deformation. Elastic deformation is like a spring, when the bending force is removed, it returns exactly to it's original shape. Push it too far and it becomes plastic deformation, which is permanent. 1/2" is well within the elastic deformation of the 99.9% pure Nickel reflector of this thickness and has zero affect on it.



Patriot said:


> Yeah, but can it beat a Surefire Annihilator!?!




Funny Patriot.


----------



## get-lit

Deflecting the reflector for a usable flood would add 1/2 pound additional weight, which is about 5% more. I don't think that's a whole lot for getting better versatility out of this.


----------



## get-lit

Good news.. I've been researching and racking my brain over the past week and I came up with a method to completely eliminate the flood hole with a weight increase of well under 1/4 lb. I'm ordering materials and will test to confirm.


----------



## Patriot

Wow! That's nothing on a light this size. Pretty amazing how you keep coming up with solutions to what seems like impossible hurdles to overcome. I'm eager to hear what you came up with this time!


----------



## TEEJ

This thing is turning into an engineering tour de force.


----------



## get-lit

The limit for deflecting the reflector for coping with the flood hole without permanently deforming the reflector can be increased by using a thicker reflector like the VSS-3, but to be thick enough to be able to deflect enough to fully fill the flood hole, the reflector would be too heavy for hand carry. The solution I would use would be to actually use a thinner reflector and then coat the outside surface of the reflector with a layer of carbon fiber a thickness that would provide the amount of deflection needed.

There are several other issues however. As the amount of deflection increases, the housing must be larger in order to accommodate the elongated shape of the reflector when deflected, which is a space compromise of what could otherwise be used for a larger reflector to increase beam power.

Also, deforming the reflector creates an oval flood beam, which should be orientated horizontally in its elongated length. But doing so would mechanically eliminate the lamp impact protection mechanism built into the alignment system.

Finally, coating the reflector with carbon fiber and building the deflection mechanism adds to the overall workload per light.

So I've begun to shy away from the deflection method and I have yet another idea I'm currently testing that does not involve deflecting the reflector.


----------



## TEEJ

It might be a lot more straight forward to just maximize throw/downrange light, and not worry about flood, give the light's intended use. An optional flip or slide down frosted or faceted diffuser for example could provide area or a softer focused lighting effect if needed, w/o compromising the optics needed to maximize range.


----------



## get-lit

I could do an internal motorized diffuser. It would make the source appear to the reflector as a 1" long by 1" wide source, which would produce a perfect 20 degree flood, but the transition from spot to flood would not provide variation in beam diameter, more of an on/off thing. What do ya think?


----------



## TEEJ

So there would be two settings, a throw and a diffused setting?

I think that's fine.

Again, I don't see my self needing THIS light for area lighting so much as ultimate search range....but, a flip between full blown throw, and 20º flood would be useful at least to not melt as many retinas at closer range.


----------



## get-lit

There would be a spot to flood transition that you could stop at any point in between, but it would not change with beam diameter, but rather it would change like this...


----------



## TEEJ

So, it just makes the hot spot larger, and distributes the output across the larger area...that works for me at least.


----------



## Roursch

Can I be in the buy list? what price are we talking now? $1000? $2000? Sorry I dont see any price estimates looking throughthe pages. What weight & runtime? looks like it runs off external battery?

If i may jump ahead, are you talking 100mcp or even 75 for a handheld light? that is beyond insanity.


----------



## Patriot

TEEJ said:


> It might be a lot more straight forward to just maximize throw/downrange light, and not worry about flood, give the light's intended use. An optional flip or slide down frosted or faceted diffuser for example could provide area or a softer focused lighting effect if needed, w/o compromising the optics needed to maximize range.



+1

I'd be willing to give up a lot on the flood side. If the motorized method can to a decent job of creating a wider angle then leaving the reflector geared purely for throw would be desirable. If the flood is a big hurdle or adds much to cost or reliability, again I'd rather just have a simple throw light at the expense of perfect flood performance.


----------



## TEEJ

Roursch said:


> Can I be in the buy list? what price are we talking now? $1000? $2000? Sorry I dont see any price estimates looking throughthe pages. What weight & runtime? looks like it runs off external battery?
> 
> If i may jump ahead, are you talking 100mcp or even 75 for a handheld light? that is beyond insanity.



My unofficial and non-binding gleaning of the thread so far indicates that it is an internal, not an external power source, and that there is no price mentioned, not even an order of magnitude. The weight is changing due to rolling design changes, which will also impact run times, price, and so forth. For form factor order of magnitude, something along the size and weight of a classic drycell searchlight seems about right.

After all the blood sweat and tears being poured into this light, it would be insane to not make it insane.


----------



## get-lit

TEEJ said:


> So, it just makes the hot spot larger, and distributes the output across the larger area...that works for me at least.



It fades between the spot diameter to the flood diameter, without having diameters in between. The diameter does not grow, it transitions from one size to the other by fading. For instance, half way through the flood adjustment range, the diameter will not be half, but instead half the light will be contained within the full spot diameter and half the light will be contained within the full flood diameter, kind of like a typical EDC light.




Roursch said:


> Can I be in the buy list? what price are we talking now? $1000? $2000? Sorry I dont see any price estimates looking throughthe pages. What weight & runtime? looks like it runs off external battery?
> 
> If i may jump ahead, are you talking 100mcp or even 75 for a handheld light? that is beyond insanity.



These are recurring questions and I should make a single post to direct these to. I'll edit the first post soon.

I will make these for a while at my cost as a CPF edition to members, with priority going to members who've been involved in the discussions. Component costs are in the $3500 range and I'm doing what I can to keep cost down without compromising performance and reliability. Weight is around 10 lbs, possibly down to 8 lbs depending upon the final weight of the housing. Consumption is 1KW. Can be powered by universal 110-220 VAC or >120 VDC. An inverter could be used to power it from a car or boat. A 120 VDC battery pack will be in the works, and someone could make their own as well. Run time would be dependent upon battery capacity. I'd make battery packs out of Turnigy 25C Nano-Tech batteries. Their energy density should provide 1/2 hour runtime with an 8 lb pack. There's some small lightweight generators that would also work for up to 4 hours. Looking to be in the 75 MCP range, but the bigger plus is that most of the light output will be at 75 MCP, not just a small portion of the light in a central hot spot like short/medium FL lights such as the MaxaBeam or Nightsun SX-16.



Patriot said:


> I'd be willing to give up a lot on the flood side. If the motorized method can to a decent job of creating a wider angle then leaving the reflector geared purely for throw would be desirable. If the flood is a big hurdle or adds much to cost or reliability, again I'd rather just have a simple throw light at the expense of perfect flood performance.



I've decided to not deflect the reflector. So now there are just two choices... 1. Have a spot-to-flood transtition that grows in diameter, but with a large hole in flood, or... 2. Have a spot-to-flood transtition that does not grow in diameter, but fades from spot diameter to flood diameter, with perfect hole-less flood pattern.


----------



## TEEJ

If I want a flood beam, I am doing a wide area search, and, a hole in the middle would make searches harder, as a donut pattern is frustrating to USE. (Its harder to make out/resolve patterns when there's a piece of the puzzle missing from the exact spot you are typically aimed at.)


----------



## Patriot

get-lit said:


> I've decided to not deflect the reflector. So now there are just two choices... 1. Have a spot-to-flood transtition that grows in diameter, but with a large hole in flood, or... 2. Have a spot-to-flood transtition that does not grow in diameter, but fades from spot diameter to flood diameter, with perfect hole-less flood pattern.



Choice #2 would seems to be obviously preferable but if it's going to add significantly to the price, complexity or reliability of the light, it wouldn't be that difficult for me to live with a donut. I'll rely on your expertise to find the best compromise.


----------



## get-lit

I concur that a fixed diameter hole-less flood is better than a variable diameter flood with hole. It wouldn't be too difficult, easier than reflector deflection. I've ordered what I need to test with.

I also have some ideas I very much look forward to experimenting with that might allow flood transition with variable diameter flood without a hole, involving a combination of the both methods.


----------



## get-lit

I diffuser traditionally made by sand blasting or acid etching would waste tons of light. It would allow about 1/3 of the light to escape as OTF spill without even hitting the reflector, and the randomness of the internal refraction would include angles that replace refraction with reflection, as well as angles of circumferential diversion when only axial diversion is needed, making for large output losses in the beam. In total there would be well under half of the light in the actual flood beam than the spot beam.

So I instead plan to make the diffuser as a cylindrical fresnel lens to direct the light in the form of the flood pattern needed without those losses. Refraction can be optimized for losses at just 12-15% total. I'm looking to have a 2-part mold made into which the glass would be either casted or blow molded as in this video.


----------



## get-lit

I've completed testing with a diffuser made by sand blasting. Not good at all. It doesn't expand the beam. There's still a beam, but with a haze everywhere. It's gonna have to be a fresnel type diffuser.

A fresnel type diffuser does not have enough angle diffusion capability to generate a 20 degree flood. The light it so optimized for throw, it's very difficult to make it flood. I could do a combination of fresnel diffuser and moving the source to get a 20-degree flood, but it would make for a more complicated design and construction. I've been measuring out flood widths outside and it seems that a 10-degree flood is actually plenty. It's all I'd use really. Maybe I'll keep the design simple, and shoot just for a 12-degree flood. Could I get some input about this from others? Measure out a width you'd like to see the flood expand to at a 25 foot distance. A 12-degree flood would be 62-3/4" wide at 25 feet.


----------



## TEEJ

I use this rule of thumb for width of beam at any given range:

Beam Angle X 0.018 x range = Beam Width at that Range

So, any of us could plug in a variable set, and see what might work for them.



As I said, for me...I don't need flood from this light, I have flooders for that purpose. 

If it comes with the ability to flood, I'd be using it more to reduce accidental blinding of those with me as the beam is swept about, etc.


As you mentioned, 10º is also fine...and I could see it hard to make the Ferrari also be able to take all the kids to soccer....and would rather it do what the minivans couldn't than sacrifice doing what's its meant for.

Especially as it looks like the costs and complexities added are a negative.


----------



## get-lit

Excellent analogy TEEJ. That's exactly how it is. In a nutshell, the higher the étendue of a light, which is basically it's amount of collimation, the more difficult it is to make it flood. There are limits to the angle of refraction that a diffuser can do. If I design the flood for the the standard arc gap of the lamp, and then use a shortened arc gap, the flood will be less and it will have a hole. So I have to design it for the shortened arc gap, and reduce the flood even more to further reduce the hole.

A benefit of designing flood with a frenel diffuser is that I can design the flood mechanism as a completely separate and removable assembly that can be optional. So if the fresnel diffuser assembly ends up being expensive, you can go without and still have the option to add it later.


----------



## BVH

A 6 degree flood would be more than enough for me.


----------



## Parker VH

BVH said:


> A 6 degree flood would be more than enough for me.



+1 to that!


----------



## get-lit

Ok guys, that's very helpful. 6 is plenty for me too. I have some components on the way to make a final test, to arrive next Friday.


----------



## get-lit

I received the cheap reflector to test axial vs perpendicular orientation, and axial is the way to go.


----------



## Patriot

6° beam is plenty for me as well and it sounds like you've figured out a "simple" way to do that. It it was an option, I'd probably skip it altogether.


----------



## BVH

Without looking back to verify, IIRC, the fine focus for NS will be 1 degree? Remembering how my Gen3 Maxabeam spot is at 900 Yards makes me think that I would might likely use the NS at around a 2-3 degree focus as 1 degree with the MB is useless at that range. But then again, I don't quite know how to factor in the 40 times greater Lumens output and less light loss in the beam - whether or not that huge amount of light increase would help identify something is such a small spot at that distance. The Megaray at 2 degrees was far more usable at 900 Yards despite its having less CP in the larger spot.


----------



## get-lit

Patriot said:


> 6° beam is plenty for me as well and it sounds like you've figured out a "simple" way to do that. It it was an option, I'd probably skip it altogether.



At this point, I'm making it non-flood with ability to add a flood "module" later.




BVH said:


> Without looking back to verify, IIRC, the fine focus for NS will be 1 degree? Remembering how my Gen3 Maxabeam spot is at 900 Yards makes me think that I would might likely use the NS at around a 2-3 degree focus as 1 degree with the MB is useless at that range. But then again, I don't quite know how to factor in the 40 times greater Lumens output and less light loss in the beam - whether or not that huge amount of light increase would help identify something is such a small spot at that distance. The Megaray at 2 degrees was far more usable at 900 Yards despite its having less CP in the larger spot.



Yes, all of the light would be within 1 degree. The surrounding area would be unlit, but illumination of the objects in the beam would glow like a large light bulb in the area. Within a range, the objects in the spot would likely be too bright to identify.


----------



## get-lit

I may end up just making two versions of the light. First would be the long FL light optimized for throw with limited flood capability and the second would be a short FL optimized for versatility with excellent flood capability. The versatile light would be about half as powerful as the thrower.

Since there's little concern for flood capability with the thrower, both will use the same alignment and flood mechanism. The versatile light will get an excellent 30 degree flood and the thrower will only get 8 degree flood, and that 8 degrees would be with a hole...


----------



## BVH

Can you post a 2-3 degree model of the thrower?


----------



## get-lit

Without taking into account an estimated retro-reflector alignment percentage, the focused beam is 1.5 degrees. I previously said under 1 degree but I forgot the calculator displays half angles, so the angles have to be doubled for the full beam angle. Here's with the retro-reflector at 85% alignment, a bit on the tighter end to get a feel for the worst case scenario for flood hole.

In the animated renders below, the beam diameters at 1 km are highlighted for percentages of lumen concentrations. If you're going by angles, add the half beam deflect angle to the half beam divergence angle and then double to get the total beam angle...





*EDIT:* The hole seems to become an issue at around 5 degrees. That really doesn't do much at all for up close, useful mostly at longer ranges. Do you think this is something we can live with or do you think it really is necessary to go to a fresnel diffuser?


----------



## BVH

Having seen the Maxabeam spot @ 1 degree and Megaray spot @ 2 degrees on the same target at 900 Yards, I will say that I think effectively doubling the Megaray spot diameter to 4 degrees and adding tons of light to it will provide plenty of light and Field of View for target identification. Adding another degree is just icing on the cake. Of course, this is just my opinion for my uses.


----------



## get-lit

Good to hear. I think this is doable for those who want some flood, and others don't care about flood at all. Keep in mind, this is with the shortened arc version of the lamp. The flood would improve slightly with the standard version of the lamp. The standard lamp should have a decent flood up to 6 degrees (Hole with shortened arc lamp @ 5 degrees = Hole with standard arc lamp @ 6 degrees).


----------



## BeastFlashlight

This thread/light separates the men from the boys, me being a little boy flashoholic. Out of my league but it's been fun poking around in here, awesome stuff get-lit!!!


----------



## Ceya!

What is the lastest word on this? 

Read a few pages back.

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## get-lit

Hi Ceya. I'm awaiting the first reflector to arrive. The mandrel was completed already, and they're working on the tooling for the aperture and vertex holes. I'll post final beam shots as soon as it arrives. I'm also taking time to get caught up with other responsibilities and with money so this will be delayed.


----------



## BeastFlashlight

Hey get-lit, have u put any more thought into making 'Poor Man' Nightswords after this masterpiece is finished?


----------



## langham

How about a "Married Man" Nightsword? I think you will just have to get one of Saablusters lights. I do all of my own mods, but I am not willing to invest the kind of time and money that Get-lit is. This is an amazing build it is always good to see how far the technology can go. Can't wait for the final beamshots. Have you tried a limited number of pre-sale (get the light first with a special finish, but you have to pre-order and pay half up front) special edition lights, to raise funds and enthusiasm for the actual release.


----------



## BeastFlashlight

Yes I'm in line for the release of Deft-X I can't wait. I also am awaiting a nice mid-arc HID mod from FRITZHID can't wait for that to arrive also. Just wondering if it's possible to out throw a short-arc Maxabeam without paying insane $$ to do so. 'Insane' meaning Nightsword money. Even a 'Poor Man' Nightsword will still not be poor at all it will still be somewhat pricey. Maybe instead of 'top of the line' everything he can make one with 'above average' everything. I'm just asking, most likely Maxabeam is my best short-arc move but doesn't hurt to ask


----------



## get-lit

I do plan a much more cost effective light after this. I mentioned this earlier in the thread. Much of the design will remain the same but with a lower power short arc lamp and power supply, with short FL reflector without retro-reflector. Cost would be a primary priority. Nightsword makes no compromise for power and versatility, so cost is lower on the list of priorities. I feel this is too much money to handle with pre-order.


----------



## ledmitter_nli

How much is this nice flashlight? or around how much will it be?

Does it come with TiVo?


----------



## get-lit

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...word-project&p=4179829&viewfull=1#post4179829


----------



## langham

If that earlier post is still accurate (I was under the impression that cost of material had gone up, with the shorter arc gap) then this is by far the cheapest longest throwing light ever. The PH50 was and some still are far more expensive and it is only a 50W HID. The Maxabeam is pretty expensive this is an amazing light for that price. I know that if I could get one under 4 grand and I wasn't married I would do it. I wouldn't have last year at this time, but I just got a real nice job and I have quite a bit of money extra now. I hope you have good luck in your endeavor. I also like that you are keeping everyone posted on your progress and getting input from prospective customers as well.


----------



## BVH

This is going to be nothing short of a Quantum Leap in the handheld Short Arc category of "flashlights".


----------



## get-lit

Reflector arrived! Waiting for the neighborhood to go so sleep before lighting up the clouds. Beamshots to come.


----------



## BVH

I don't remember the reflectance of enhanced Rhodium? Trying to wrap my mind around the ultimate performance difference between speckled enhanced Rhodium and protected AL.


----------



## Patriot

get-lit said:


> Component costs are in the $3500 range and I'm doing what I can to keep cost down without compromising performance and reliability.





langham said:


> this is by far the cheapest longest throwing light ever. The PH50 was and some still are far more expensive and it is only a 50W HID.



It's twice the price of a PH50, which is a bargain by the way, but unless I've misunderstood you, the PH50 isn't far more expensive.


----------



## Patriot

get-lit said:


> air filtering keeps dust and debris out, and air/water separation keeps rain water out. Beamshots to come.



Get-lit, can you remind me what type of air filter it's going to use. Is it a micro HEPA of some type and if not, would it make sense to use something like this in order to keep the reflector perfect?

Thanks


----------



## get-lit

HEPA would be too restrictive for air flow without crazy fan power or large filter area. More along the lines of 60-90 ppi. Oiled filter can be used for micro dust when needed.

BVH, enhanced rhodium is 90% reflectant and it's the ultimate for durability, but after comparing I prefer the clarity of non-enhanced. I believe protected aluminum would be the ticket.

EDIT: Waited and watched radar all night, no break in the rain. Beamshots will have to wait 

Aside from the anticipated performance, I am extremely happy with the overall size and fit of the reflector. It fits the bill exactly as I'd hoped.


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> HEPA would be too restrictive for air flow without crazy fan power or large filter area. More along the lines of 60-90 ppi. Oiled filter can be used for micro dust when needed.
> 
> BVH, enhanced rhodium is 90% reflectant and it's the ultimate for durability, but after comparing I prefer the clarity of non-enhanced. I believe protected aluminum would be the ticket.
> 
> EDIT: Waited and watched radar all night, no break in the rain. Beamshots will have to wait
> 
> Aside from the anticipated performance, I am extremely happy with the overall size and fit of the reflector. It fits the bill exactly as I'd hoped.



Darn that rain!!! Maybe tonight?

Excellent updates! Is the lamp mfg going to be willing to do the reduced arc gap lamp. Getting difficult to contain my excitement and to be without one of these in my arsenal.


----------



## get-lit

Hoping for tonight.

EDIT: If you would like to use this exact reflector in your own lights, PM me and I'll tell you where you can get them.. they're made in the US by a CPF supporter.


----------



## langham

Sorry about that I got my thoughts mixed up. The release price for the PH50 was around $2200.00, sorry about that. For some reason I remembered the prices for the Beast, Beast 2 and the Polarion at much higher than they actually were. I should have verified prior to posting. On the other hand 2 of these wouldn't reach the levels of this amazing piece of equipment. Have we discussed run-time yet? Even if we have since then I am at least relatively sure that you have changed several specs on such things as the fan and bulb that may have effected these values. Is this thing going to be able to run an hour?


----------



## BVH

The Primary power supply (not the ballast), be it batteries, an inverter or generator will be external of the light so run time is dependent on whatever PS setup each of us wants to get on our own. There's some electrical spec somewhere back in this thread but IIRC, 120 VAC, 110 VDC are required, maybe some 220/240 VAC too, but not sure on that. IIRC, a 120VAC/1KV genset will do.


----------



## get-lit

There were no clouds in the testing, so straight into space. I compared the last medium FL reflector to the new one and the new one is clearly brighter, even with much less light gather and without the retro reflector. I then tested with the lamp oriented perpendicular and got very strange results... the illuminance at distance seemed brighter and the beam was much more defined, but seemed dimmer. This impression could be an illusion because axial has some corona and perpendicular had zero corona. The absence of corona could make the beam center appear brighter at distance while it may not be. I'm just not sure what to make of it. I took beam shots to compare the two orientations but dawn was approaching so I'll have to do a well controlled test another night. I'll use identical camera settings on a tripod-mounted camera. I don't have a distance long enough to take any useful lux measurements. I also never got the alignments perfectly on. Here's two beamshots...

*Axial*






*Perpendicular* (slightly different angle - no tripod)





This is not the same camera I used with the *last beamshots*. I'll find that camera and test with it because this camera is not capturing the intensity of the beam as well as I see it.


----------



## BVH

What a dramatic difference! The top reminds me of the Maxabeam style beam whereas the lower reminds me of the beam of my makeshift ACR RCL600 beam style that started my love of long Focal Length. Will be fun to see the next set of shots you describe with original cam and comparison with previous shots. The excitement is building!


----------



## TEEJ

It APPEARS to be the way the two handle difference beam convergence patterns. With the beam converging earlier, the foreground is more brightly lit, which leaves less distally. With the later convergence, the proximal dispersion appears to be reduced (The beam making the air glow around it, etc...), leaving more light to hit the distal target?


----------



## get-lit

TEEJ, neither are converging, the axial has a slight corona, with "possibly" a brighter center than the perpendicular, with perpendicular placing an even illuminance in the beam. There's no way to tell which is actually brighter at distance from these shots because there are no clouds and the shots were taken at different angles so you can't tell the relative distances of the beams. One of these could be throwing twice as far and there's no way to tell. I almost didn't post the shots because they're not helpful to know anything but I figured I'd show something for now. A tripod will make this easy.


----------



## Ceya!

Thanks for the updates,Get Lit!

The top beam seems like it it open a vortex in the sky and the light from it is shining through. LOL.



S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## TEEJ

get-lit said:


> TEEJ, neither are converging, the axial has a slight corona, with "possibly" a brighter center than the perpendicular, with perpendicular placing an even illuminance in the beam. There's no way to tell which is actually brighter at distance from these shots because there are no clouds and the shots were taken at different angles so you can't tell the relative distances of the beams. One of these could be throwing twice as far and there's no way to tell. I almost didn't post the shots because they're not helpful to know anything but I figured I'd show something for now. A tripod will make this easy.



There's no beam convergence?

If I measure the lux at 1 M and at 100 M, after the math, I'd get the same cd?


----------



## get-lit

Offset focus creates convergence at the expense of luminous concentration beyond the convergence point, otherwise there's collimation with slight divergence which produces the most concentration at the furthest distance.

EDIT: Keep in mind the beams in the photos appear to be converging when viewed from the light because they are nearly collimated to a long distance. At the far end the beam is actually hundreds if not thousands of feet wide.


----------



## get-lit

More beam shots, this time more controlled but still need to do one more attempt because I had the auto white balance on and I believe that disrupted a level playing field because the photos varied in sky lightness. I evened that out after the fact but it's not as accurate as having the photos all with the same balance from the get go. Another issue is variance in cloud density. As the cloud patches passed, the beam spots would highlight them and then dim again as they left. In the three shots below, the middle one happens to be in a less dense region of the clouds, so the spot could have been brighter. That one happens to be the 3" FL Axial. Left is 1.5" FL and right is 3" FL perpendicular. Just as before, to the eye, the beam of the 3" FL Axial is noticeably brighter than the 3" FL Perpendicular, while the 3" FL Perpendicular seems to have a brighter spot, which makes no sense to me. To be sure of this, I'll have to do a third round of testing while applying what I've learned from previous mistakes.

Also, be sure to realize that the 1.5" FL on the left is the enhanced reflector, and the other two are not, so when all said and done, they will benefit another 23% in lumen output. Additionally when all said and done, those two will further benefit another 32-38% with a retro-reflector. So figure those two will have nearly 60% more lumen output.







Here's the same with diffusion to preserve the background color that gets muted with normal compressed images...





Now this is really interesting, when bringing the brightness down, the 3" FL Axial has the brightest beam while the 3" FL Perpendicular has the dimmest beam by far, but with the brightest spot by far...





The beam of the 3" perpendicular is just not all that impressive by eye, yet the spot seems to be. It doesn't give me the wow factor in the beam like the other two, but it's likely more useful for illuminating distant objects. When looking up at the sky with the other two, the beam is bright and dizzying but with the perpendicular, you mostly just see the spot. Without any clouds or an object to hit, the beam of the Perpendicular looks weak. This was also mentioned by someone I had look at these in person with me, and I never brought it up so there must be something to it. It needs to hit an object to show its stuff.

The spot of the Perpendicular is oval shaped. When looking at its beam on the narrow side, there are two beams as the VSS-1 because the lamp itself blocks the beam when oriented perpendicular to the reflector. When looking at its beam on the wide side, it appears flat with even brightness, just as the 2nd pic here. It looks like a tractor beam to me, I think because it's smooth unlike typical beams with bright centers that dim outward. So while the brightness of the beam itself is not as impressive, its unusual appearance is noticeable.

Because the bulk of the Axial's light output comes from the center of the reflector, while the bulk of the Perpendicular's light output comes from the outer edge of the reflector, the Perpendicular should have a slightly safer range because there is less concentration at closer range.

The perpendicular will gain more from the retro-reflector than the axial, because the lamp in the axial is already projecting a majority of it's light directly onto the primary reflector due to the lamp's luminance profile being directed toward the primary reflector. Axial will gain about 32-38% with a retro-reflector and I suspect Perpendicular will gain up to 45%. Retro reflectors will likely just be Rhodium, as Enhanced Aluminum most likely could not handle the temp. Rhodium is more temp resistant and already has hard enough time with retro-reflector temps. Of course Enhanced Aluminum will be no problem for the primary reflector since it's 3" to 5.5" from the lamp with filtered, forced air cooling. The primary reflector never gets hot to the touch.

To the eye, the beam of the 3" FL Axial is more impressive than the 1.5" FL, more so than what the photos seem to show. Remember it's the 1.5" FL that made these original beamshots with the old camera.

EDIT: The photos here capture approximately the top third of the beams, photographed from about 100 feet away from the lights.


----------



## shuen

It seems that reflector can collect more light & focus it more concentrated in axial configuration. The difference may be caused by without retro-reflector.


----------



## ez78

Wow! Impressive beams! Great to watch this project evolve.

EDIT: Removed some text where I tried to explain why the Perpendicular setup's spot might appear brighter. Realized my logic was incorrect.


----------



## BVH

I realize there's more to do to finish the comparison but the 3" FL/middle beam is the most attractive to me. Very defined and more even throughout it's cross section. Again, reminds me most of my RCL600. But ultimately, it's illuminance of the target that really counts, not beam appearance.


----------



## get-lit

BVH said:


> I realize there's more to do to finish the comparison but the 3" FL/middle beam is the most attractive to me. Very defined and more even throughout it's cross section. Again, reminds me most of my RCL600. But ultimately, it's illuminance of the target that really counts, not beam appearance.



I actually thought you would prefer the one on the right (3" FL Perpendicular) because it appears to be putting out a spot that's not only larger but brighter per unit area as well. Something about the other two is causing more of the light to be absorbed into the beam, making the beam brighter but the spot less bright. I wonder if this has something to do with light polarization. I really need to be able to compare lux but I have no open space and the assembly is not yet portable. Maybe I'll float a lux sensor on a balloon lol.



shuen said:


> It seems that reflector can collect more light & focus it more concentrated in axial configuration. The difference may be caused by without retro-reflector.



None of these have retro reflectors. The two on the right can have one and the left can not.

The two on the left have about the same "total" beam diameter, with the middle one having a much brighter beam center fading off toward the edge of the beam, and the beam on the right is evenly distributed. However, the spot in the clouds of the right beam appears much brighter across the entire beam width. It seems to be placing much more light on the target. Again I'm under the impression that the one on right right is somehow absorbing less light in the atmosphere, so the beam in the sky is less intense but there's more light remaining to illuminate distant objects, so it seems. This is MUCH better for a searchlight intended to be useful for seeing things.

As far as a searchlight intended to "be seen", as in more impressive... take a look at the very last image I posted, where I darkened it to reveal which is brighter. The one on the right (Perpendicular) will actually be seen from a greater distance because the "spot" is actually brighter than the "beams" of the other two. Of course this only counts when there's clouds or an object to illuminate.


----------



## get-lit

I'm beginning to think there is really something to light polarization to make the difference between the axial and perpendicular. I'm still reading up about polarization but it's very interesting that there is a *circular polarization and an elliptical polarization* and the test beams differ in shape, one being round and one being oval.


----------



## BVH

More light on the target is, for me the end desire. The other beam may be more attractive but in the end, it's light on the target that counts.


----------



## ez78

Found this bit of info about polarization of light in the atmosphere due to scattering:

"A third way to polarize light is by scattering. Light scattering off atoms and molecules in the atmosphere is unpolarized if the light keeps traveling in the same direction, is linearly polarized if it scatters in a direction perpendicular to the way it was traveling, and somewhere between linearly polarized and unpolarized if it scatters of at another angle" 
http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Polarization.html 

So maybe the first stage of polarization takes place in the optics and then a second stage with the scattering. I don't understand that much about this stuff, but found it interesting.


----------



## get-lit

I'm not so sure polarization is causing this. The light coming from the lamp is un-polarized in all directions, so it shouldn't make a difference how the lamps is oriented. The reflector polarizes the light, more so with greater incident angle, and none at "normal" angle (straight on). The lamp emits a bit more light toward the cathode end, and when oriented axially, slightly more of the light would hit the reflector closer to normal angle, and the reflected light would be slightly less polarized than if the lamp were to be oriented perpendicular. So the beam with perpendicular lamp orientation is slightly more polarized, but not by an amount that would be this noticeable.

Un-polarized light scatters through the atmosphere, with the scattered light becoming polarized and the un-scattered portion remaining un-polarized. If the light is already polarized, it might be less affected when passing through the atmosphere. Still it's not much difference between the two lamp orientations, perpendicular would have only slightly more polarization. Axial orientation has 20% more light hitting the reflector closer to "normal" angle than perpendicular orientation. The difference in the amount of polarization would be a fraction of that 20%, so it doesn't seem to account for this much of a difference in the beam.

It may just be the perpendicular is dimmer in both the beam and the spot and maybe the cloud cover happened to be more dense when viewing and photographing it. Last night was constant downpour and I won't have time to test tonight either.


----------



## get-lit

No clouds out tonight so I'll just post the originals from the 2nd shoot...
(top third of beams)





Again, darkened reveals how the perpendicular beam is much dimmer but the spot is over the top...





Even if I can't take more beam shots now to confirm this, this is the difference I saw in person. I recall my first impression when firing up the perpendicular, aligning it, stepping back a hundred feet, and then taking my first fresh look up at the spot in the clouds, I was astounded in a way I'd never anticipated. I was actually blown away at the difference from everything I've seen up to that point. But then as I walked back toward the light, I noticed how underwhelming the beam was, and I was very confused. I have no idea what could account for this if polarization isn't the cause. I'm going to play around with a polarizing filter, maybe there's undocumented lamp polarization going on.

EDIT: Just tested and the lamp outputs all un-polarized light. Since the reflector polarizes the light, it seems the reflector somehow changes the polar shape based on the oriented shape of the source, with elliptical polarization passing through the atmosphere less affected than circular polarization. In any case, still waiting for a night with clouds and without rain.


----------



## ez78

That's a big difference indeed. Quite a puzzle.:thinking: So there isn't any solid target close by that you could aim the light at and take photos with very short exposure, so that the possible atmospheric losses would be out of the equation? Btw, how high would you estimate the clouds were in those shots?


----------



## get-lit

I'm surrounded by very tall trees. I may end up getting an inverter to use it from a car, or just a generator, and take it somewhere with some space. Have a friend use a lux meter at a far distance. I have no idea on the height of the clouds.

There's some *beamshots of the VSS-3 tank light on actual objects (3rd pic)* which can be compared based on lamp and reflector. The VSS-3 uses a 32,000 lumen lamp with 2.9mm luminous area and a 14" reflector. The Nightsword will use a 75,000 lumen lamp with 3.5mm luminous area and an 11" reflector having an effective diameter of 13"+ when used with a retro-reflector. So the Nightsword will basically have 2.3 times the lumen output of the VSS-3, but within a 60% larger diameter spot (2.6 times the area), making for 88% of the average luminance within the the beam as the VSS-3, but with less peak luminance of the VSS-3 beam center because the non-Xenon lamp's luminous concentration within the source is evenly distributed instead of peaked toward the cathode.

The short arc version should have 40% larger beam diameter with 15% greater average luminance than the VSS-3, but again with less peak luminance in the beam center.


----------



## BVH

Thanks for reviving beam pics of my VSS-3a from long ago.


----------



## get-lit

Forecast calls for a few passing clouds tonight! Here's a cool *tool to calculate the height of the cloud base*.


----------



## TEEJ

To me, it seems that the beam that's creating lux on target w/o ricocheting off crud in the air as much on the way down range is the preferred beam. Polarization, or some analogous phenom is probably at play, but the scatter in the beam itself is greatly improved by whatever it is.

I agree with BVH et al, I would want more light on target, and no visible beam, more than a bright dowel shaped light beam, and a dimmer target.

There are MANY applications, including military - where a less visible beam itself is greatly advantageous, not to mention that in a line of sight, you have to see THROUGH a glowing beam to see the target...so no beam/less beam glow to obstruct the view of the target is a real break through.

I'd pursue that technology....maybe even patent it for that purpose?


----------



## get-lit

I agree, the beam itself obscures the illuminated target. This is one reason I prefer long focal length reflectors, as they project much less haze around the beam. It's interesting looking back at how the definition of what the ultimate goal is for this project has changed since the beginning, starting with simply the most candlepower with a ~14,000 lumen lamp, then realizing there's more to the beam than candlepower, and now realizing there's much more to it than the visibility of the beam itself - "possibly" but very likely at this point. I still need to confirm this with another test but the weather's been either cloudless or downpour, which is odd since it's typically overcast here. If what I've been seeing occurs with another test, I'll proceed with perpendicular lamp orientation.

I've been reading up on polarization and as I suspected, it very well does affect the visibility of the actual beam due to its affect on Rayleigh scatter, and of course with minimized Rayleigh scatter comes a dimmer beam and a brighter spot at the end of the beam. Here's *polarization's affect on Rayleigh scatter* in video from MIT. Watch this video entirely, very amazing stuff. In fact this *entire course* has a few dozen incredible videos. If I could just have a short conversation with this guy.

(EDIT: In the above paragraph, my interpretation of the video illustrating the affects of polarized light on Rayleigh scatter is incorrect.)


----------



## ez78

Thanks for that MIT video. Great find.  That's something that every flashaholic should know about.


----------



## get-lit

I never thought I'd come across any more surprises at this stage of the game, but this one is by far the biggest.


----------



## BVH

Very interesting video. I wish they would have shown the ultimate "spot" on the wall while polarizing and depolarizing. The reflected "spot" on the entry end of the Lucite got brighter and dimmer in sync with the beam in the Lucite so would the ultimate spot on the wall do the same? At least in the Lucite, the brighter the beam, the brighter the reflected spot. Would it be the same with the Nightsword beam?


----------



## get-lit

The light impacted perpendicular (the "normal angle") to the Lucite entry and exit surfaces, so polarization has zero affect on reflection at those surfaces. At that angle, neither horizontal nor vertical polar planes crossing the reflection surface would have more surface area to "grip" and reflect from, and it's simply Brewster's angle that determines the surface reflection and refraction based on the material's index of refraction at that point. As the angle becomes more incident, a polar plane of the light waves begins to contact the surface with more area than other polar planes, and greater reflects than other polar planes. But since the laser entered and exited the Lucite perpendicular, the reflections of the Lucite entry and exit surfaces most likely got brighter with increased scatter within the Lucite only due to increased internal reflection from the scatter within the Lucite itself. The spot on the wall would get brighter as the the scatter within the Lucite got dimmer because less of the light is getting scattered within the Lucite.


----------



## Blueknight

My head hurts now.


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> ....................The spot on the wall would get brighter as the the scatter within the Lucite got dimmer because less of the light is getting scattered within the Lucite.



Well, I can completely understand the concept that the less scattered light there is from the beam, the more that hits the target. The first part......well......


----------



## ez78

I thought I understood it earlier, but then my head started to hurt also. Now I think it's only the direction of the scatter that is changing and not the absolute amount, and so the ultimate spot would stay the same when the guy is flipping the filter 90 degrees. I mean what if you viewed the Lucid from above, isn't the scattering happening there at full power when it's dim from the side view?

I gotta go sleep. I think I'll be dreaming of polarizers and stuff.


----------



## get-lit

I've learned to embrace the headaches, it means you're learning. I sleep on it and it makes more sense when I wake up.

ez78, I'm beginning to think your 2nd interpretation is correct, which means my interpretation is not. Something else must be occurring other than vertical vs horizontal polarized light. Maybe circular vs spherical polarized light, or maybe not even related to polarized light.

EDIT: I've searched everywhere and there's no indication that scatter is reduced by polarization.


----------



## langham

I think that the light is simply being transported as anti-matter and being re-assembled once it hits the target. Maybe it is so bright that the dust particles said screw it and just got out of the way.


----------



## get-lit

Ok guys, an apology for all the headache is in order ... I messed up big time with my previous test!

I've completed the most thorough round of testing yet and there is absolutely no comparison. Axial orientation clearly walks all over perpendicular. In my previous test, I simply did not align the axial orientation well enough. I thought I had it aligned because the central beam was peaked, but if I had moved the lamp slightly deeper into the reflector, the entirety of the beam would have been peaked. Also, in the previous round, the misaligned axial was also not directly hitting cloud cover, which made for an even less fair comparison. As soon as I saw the axial beam properly aligned this time, I knew it was better even before comparing the photos. I'd previously thought the perpendicular was incredible because it was the best I'd seen up to that point, and now the aligned axial is much better than that.

EDIT: Here's the beam shots, all 3" FL (cloud base about 2000 feet)...

*"Misaligned" Axial / "Aligned" Axial*









*Axial / Perpendicular*








*Axial / Perpendicular (F**ast Shutter)*








I'd say it could still be further aligned to an even tighter beam, but it is very difficult without my alignment assembly being complete. There was no point in completing it until I was sure if it were to be made for axial or perpendicular orientation first. Again, once the high reflectance reflector is in use and with the retro-reflector, there should be a 60-65% increase in beam output, and of course the super short arc version of the lamp will further increase beam intensity.


----------



## ez78

I am glad there was a simple explanation for what was going on. Beams are looking good. :thumbsup: Kind of a relief it wasn't the polarization or maybe langham's antimatter theory. It was nice to learn some new things.


----------



## SemiMan

Great that the well tuned axial is your best implementation!

Do you think that still explains the why initially the perpendicular had a much better spot but less visible beam?

Was thinking about what could possibly be creating specific polarization .. not sure what, but if there was polarization, then effect you could have been seeing could have been purely an observer position issue.

I.e. the perpendicular beam looked dim from where you were photographing it, but if you went 90 degrees to the beam ... which would require you been a good distance away perhaps, then the beam may have looked brighter in that direction. Clutching at straws, but never know.

Semiman


----------



## BVH

I'm very happy that Axial is the higher performer. I think an Axial orientation is going to make the physical light much more attractive in appearance. Not that "that" really matters anywhere near as much as performance. I'm really getting excited!!


----------



## musicmagic

Came across this thread while searching headlamps (go figure?) my jaw dropped so far my cat looked at me funny. All I can say is: this is one hell of a thread to jump into the the incandescent/HID side of CPF. Are there any picture of the beat itself? ( too lazy to go through the whole thread). Imagine if a plane crossed over the beam... or a satellite...Not on purpose of course.... *Zomg cap'tin, what the hell, was that?!* Wonder if you could put solar panels on the bottom of a drone and power it off this monster... OH THE POSSIBILITIES!!!! Whew. monologue over.


----------



## BVH

Pretty sure there have been changes since this pic but it will provide a general idea. It's quite spectacular!

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...word-project&p=4109410&viewfull=1#post4109410


----------



## get-lit

SemiMan, I don't believe polarization was involved now. Perpendicular is noticeably dimmer in both the beam and the spot. 2nd paragraph in my *last post* explains why axial appeared with a dimmer spot before.

musicmagic, it won't be harmful to a plane nor satellite, although nobody that I'd release this to would ever light up a plane with it. It's in the realm of power of the VSS-3, but hand held. BVH posted a link to a close variant of the final design.

I was actually rooting for perpendicular because that would eliminate the whole anode cooling issue. It's clearly worth the hassle now.

I have many other things I have to get caught up with for a while, so progress will be slower for a while. I'll be gradually working on the anode cooling trick, retro-reflector, and alignment assembly. Once the alignment assembly is complete, I'll be able to use the light horizontally and could then take lux measurements.


----------



## ledmitter_nli

Nice pics. Looks like something out of Rotterdam


----------



## get-lit

For the latest design I've decided to go with a motorized fresnel diffuser for flood because a stationary lamp has several advantages for durability, cooling, hole-less flood, and zero spill light. Additionally, this will move the project along faster with lower cost, as I can work on making these initially without flood capability, and then afterward make a drop-in motorized fresnel flood module.

On "paper" with a few "ifs" this could reach 106 MCP. In the real world, there are imperfections that lower that figure, particularly the accuracy of the retro-reflector alignments. One of the "ifs" are if the retro reflector surface could be of high reflectance protected aluminum coating while sustaining the temp near the lamp. The other "if" is the how short the arc can be on the super-short arc version of the lamp. This figure is calculated with a 3mm gap, which should surely be doable. May even be able to go smaller. For now I'm posting the drawings with unmarked MCP ratings, but my goal is to label it 100.











*EDIT*: The design changes are.. bringing the handle down even closer to the center of gravity. The axis of the electronics housing/air intake housing are now along the axis of the optics housing for completely straight air flow path and cleaner lines. I've narrowed and lengthened the front extension tube to increase light output and reinforced the tube with three braces. I've added bi-pod mount points at the center of gravity, and had to lower the yellow text in order to accommodate the mount points. The bezel will be a steel ring for added rigidity and strength rather than the sleeve style bezel like the Nightsun. I've also added reinforcement to the bottom of the optics housing for impacts on the ground.


----------



## Mr. Tone

I am still following this thread and even more impressed now with the latest pics you have posted. You have really been putting in the homework and it looks like it is paying off. Those cloud shots are very impressive and the new "aligned axial" does look like a light-saber! :bow::bow::bow: Keep up the great work!


----------



## BVH

Been on the road all day and come home to.....a beautiful work of art, a thing of beauty!


----------



## Patriot

get-lit said:


> Also, in the previous round, the misaligned axial was also not directly hitting cloud cover, which made for an even less fair comparison. As soon as I saw the axial beam properly aligned this time, I knew it was better even before comparing the photos.



I fell behind on this thread and started reading tonight from the previous page. When I saw the difference in the beams I thought to myself, has anyone considered that perhaps the target itself wasn't uniformly reflective? I was relieved to know that was at least part of the issue and that you had figured it out. Sometimes it actually ends up being the 'simple' things I guess. 

The updated shots are amazing! Thanks for posting them Get-lit!
:twothumbs


----------



## get-lit

Yep I mentioned this in the first round of beamshots. The patch of sky the axial beam was on is clearly darker in the first round... the cloud density was thinner, less reflective. It was a combination of less reflective clouds and misalignment for axial.

It's good to know the progression of design updates are liked. I'm also very pleased, particularly at how much cleaner and durable the design is.

One of the issues I'm dealing with is head wind pressure since the most portable, highest CP output design requires the exhaust to exit the center of the aperture. I'll therefore make two different bezel assemblies, one as shown for the most portable application with highest CP, capable of around 25 mph direct head wind, and another with exhaust diverted to the outer edges of the aperture, with more weight up front and about 13.3% less CP, for practically unlimited head wind applications. Approaching the issue this way allows me to greatly simplify the design with less weight. The fan and DC converter would be nearly 1/3 the weight and no need for an air pressure sensor.


----------



## BVH

I'll be in-line for the MAX CP model. No need for me to operate in any significant head winds.


----------



## TEEJ

Would a simple diverter that could be flipped open, etc, in case of strong head winds, to essentially take advantage of the cooling potential of a 25+ mph head wind, rather than to fight it, work?


----------



## get-lit

An add-on diverter could be be done, but I don't see a way with the new supports I've added. The reason I've added the supports is because I went with a thinner diameter exhaust tube. The thinner diameter blocks less light and produces 8.8% more CP. But it also has less bonding surface to the lens. The thinner tube also has to be longer for the same air/water separation ability, and the added length also produces more torque on that smaller bonding surface with any inadvertent lateral impacts to the tube. This is why I've added the three support braces. But the support braces in affect preclude the use of an add-on diverter, forcing the use of two entirely separate assemblies depending upon the needed use.

EDIT: I could forgo the added bracing but I feel more comfortable with the bracing. The lamp itself is inside there, it should to be extremely durable. Say for instance the light is on, and a hard impact on the extension tube breaks it off.. the lamp will fall out, the circuit will break and the ballast will automatically make several 50kV attempts at re-ignition with an open enclosure. I prefer the peace of mind with the bracing over the versatility of an add-on diverter.


----------



## BVH

Get-Lit, you mention that the thinner diameter tube yields an 8.8% increase in CP but is there any resulting loss ofa portion of that increase by way of blockage by the 3 struts?


----------



## get-lit

.5% to .75% total for all three depending on final strut thickness. The struts can be thin and still be very rigid axially because they are long axially.

edit: On the other hand, even small differences in blocked diameter make a significant difference because as the angle from the source to the reflector surface approaches axial, the "apparent" diameter of the source gets smaller... When facing axial, the facing surface of the source is the source width, typically 1/3 the source height. Getting the focal length out there helps take advantage of the smaller source width. Very short focal length also takes advantage of the smaller source width by reflecting closer to axial at the front of the reflector rather than the rear for long focal length.


----------



## Nos

woooooooow!

When i read this thread the 1st time it was only 1 1/2 pages...........and now the whole evening is over 

Page by page, all the information, all the input, all the changes...............i can just thank you all 4 sharing your thoughts..........I would call it a "scientific flashaholic epos"

If I would have any chance to help you with my knowlege.........but this thing is just "bejond everything"

And then, polarisation. Wow this is amazing. Thank you guys, keep going :thumbsup:


----------



## TEEJ

OK, plan C - If the guy in the chopper doing a search can't search facing forward due to head wind restrictions, *are there any tail, or, side wind restrictions*, IE: Could the light pointing at terrain we just flew over, with the wind at our backs, or, blowing across our line of sight, now, work?


----------



## get-lit

Thanks for the support. There's been lots of helpful input along the way, particularly on the electical end by HKJ.

The output-optimized narrow-exhaust design requires it to be slightly longer than I first calculated. I've updated the drawings already posted.

I've also arrived at a design for unlimited wind pressure from any direction. It's 87% (edited: see below) as powerful as the output-optimized narrow-exhaust design, because it requires two lenses and a wider exhaust tube, but necessary for many applications. It would be a lens assembly swap. Completion of this would come after the light with the optimized-output lens assembly, and probably also after the motorized-fresnel diffuser module.







EDIT:


TEEJ said:


> OK, plan C - If the guy in the chopper doing a search can't search facing forward due to head wind restrictions, *are there any tail, or, side wind restrictions*, IE: Could the light pointing at terrain we just flew over, with the wind at our backs, or, blowing across our line of sight, now, work?



For the output-optimized lens assembly, there would be no wind pressure restriction from any direction other than head on. For the wind-pressure-optimized lens assembly, there would be no wind pressure restriction from any direction.

Also, no struts would be needed for the wind-pressure-optimized lens assembly because the exhaust tube would be wider and shorter, and supported by two lenses.

EDIT: For the wind-pressure-optimized lens assembly, I can make a portion of exhaust tube be glass for blocking less light, so the assembly would have *87% the output of the output-optimized assembly* rather than 82%.


----------



## TEEJ

Ironically, as a concept and not applicable to this design per se, it seems counter intuitive to me that wind would not be able to AUGMENT cooling, rather than hinder it...as airflow is already an issue, and a fan is added to the design to move it. Its seems a shame that the wind itself could not enter where needed.

I suppose its all a matter of where the air would need to enter, to cool the part needing it, and then exit to carry that heat off, without unevenly cooling what it was there for, being in the way of the light production, etc.

Sigh.


----------



## get-lit

Air flow must proceed forward because air after the lamp is 200-250F and air must first pass over the electronics housing before the lamp.

Also, air/water separation volume is several times larger on the intake end than the exhaust end. The larger volume on the intake end is needed to offset the effect of the incoming air flow from drawing water into the air flow paths rather than being diverted out along the water flow paths. The large volume slows the velocity of incoming air to resist drawing water along the air flow paths. The volume on the exhaust side can be much smaller because if anything, air velocity assists in keeping water out. 

The intake side also needs to be larger because fans are much more sensitive to intake pressure restrictions before the fan than exhaust pressure restrictions after the fan.

Also, the air filter must be placed on the intake side as well, which makes for additional volume. The filter needs to be of large surface area to be less restrictive on the intake end of the fan, otherwise the air filter would have to be much lower density (pores per inch) and less effective. The SX-16 and SX-5 Nightsun have a very small air filter that has to be low density in order to be less restrictive on the air flow, but I find low density to not be effective at filtering dust and debris. In fact, even with that low density, it's still too restrictive on the air flow path of the Nightsun because the filter area is too small. In the case of the SX-5 Nightsun, operators are instructed to remove the air filter entirely.

If the intake were to be on the front of the light, it would be large, front heavy, and would block light output.

*EDIT:* Another reason the air flow has to move forward is to cool the retro reflector. It burns up if the air air flow is any other direction.


----------



## get-lit

I've revised post #631... a portion of the exhaust tube can be glass on the the wind-pressure-optimized lens assembly, so it's output would be 87% of the output-optimized lens assembly rather than just 82%. The wind-pressure-optimized lens is the only way to go for several applications, such as from a fast moving off road vehicle and boating etc. Output optimized would be fine for non-fast moving hand held use.


----------



## get-lit

Great news.. I just realized something that makes the wind-pressure-optimized lens unnecessary. I've been calculating the head wind pressure as the head wind pressure times the aperture surface area for net force. However, the back pressure effect on the fan is not the net force, it's simply the head wind pressure itself, with only some affect by the aperture surface area. And since the output-optimized design places the exhaust ports a few inches forward of the ports, back pressure is even less affected by the aperture surface area. A single high-power fan should be able to maintain up to 50 mph head wind without a wind-pressure-optimized lens. The new heavy double fan and required heavy DC converter could maintain up to 75 mph head wind without a wind-pressure-optimized lens. So I'll move on without it the wind-pressure-optimized lens.

These last two "un"-issues are a bit embarassing, but hey I'm learning as I go.


----------



## BVH

That's great. Only one model to deal with always makes things more simple.


----------



## get-lit

Physically it's easier, and it's great that it can be output-optimized with the lightest weight.

Here's an overview of my current air flow and air pressure considerations...

To accommodate head-wind air pressure, the fan has to be capable of high pressure. There are plenty of capable fans, but the issue here is regulating the fan power to maintain a constant air flow with fluctuating head-wind pressures. One of the biggest concerns here is overpowering with too much air flow during rapid transitions from high head-wind air pressure to low. Fans that are capable of maintaining adequate flow under high pressure will more than triple the air flow when the head-wind pressure is gone. The problem with this particularly is in the rain. The volume of the air intake is determined for accommodating air/water separation up to a certain incoming air flow. If that volume is determined for adequate air flow to cool the system under high head-wind pressures, that volume will be over powered by a high pressure fan when there is no head-wind pressure, and rain water would be drawn into the system.

There's five possible solutions...

1. Make the volume of the air intake large enough to accommodate air/water separation under the over-powered air flow condition. This would be ridiculously large. Nope.

2. Use a temp sensor to reduce fan power when temps get low. But this would not accommodate rapid fluctuation from high to low head-wind air pressure fast enough to prevent overpowering the intake air/water separation capability in the rain.

3. Use the fan's RPM sensor. But the fan's RPM does not reflect actual air speed through the system. In fact under most conditions I've tested, fan RPM does not slow with pressure resistance, and actually RPM increases with a certain amount of resistance. This won't work.

4. Use an air speed sensor to monitor flow within the system. This would maintain proper air flow even under rapid head-wind fluctuations. So far this is the only suitable candidate, but it adds another electronic component and it gets complicated to program.

5. Use a specially designed high pressure fan that operates only under a very limited range of air flows. These fans only increase ever so slightly in flow with drop in pressure resistance. This is a very simple solution and I've found a suitable fan that matches the pressure and flow required here. What's also nice about this is it's more power efficient and a heavy DC converter isn't required.


----------



## TEEJ

I love the way you bang into problems, think them over, and figure out the new way forward.


----------



## get-lit

I have to do a final test to confirm cooling effectiveness with the latest design. I've had renewed interest in the benefits of the latest P-VIP and UHP projector lamp technology, to assess what improvements there are over traditional lamps. The biggest improvement is the super high operating pressure of over 150 atm, which reduces arc size, improves arc stability, improves operational orientation limits, improves color rendering by evening out the spikes and lows in the spectral distribution, shifts spectral output toward higher wavelength for more red output, color balance, and luminous efficacy. Higher pressure also increases lamp voltage and lowers current, reducing electrically induced electrode losses. High voltage, low current ballasts are also much smaller and less weight. These lamps also include a mix of Halogen/Bromine for an enhanced "halogen cycle" to keep evaporated electrode metals from forming on the glass, and further promoting re-generation back onto the electrodes during operation, making for longer lamp life and less output loss throughout lamp life. Argon is also added as a starting gas.

After researching these benefits in this latest generation of lamp technology, I was left wanting this for the Nightsword lamp, but it turns out the lamp does happen to utilize all of these features, and not by chance. It's basically a P-VIP/UHP lamp taken to a new output level. It's operating pressure is 200 atm, it includes the enhanced halogen cycle gas mixture, argon starting gas, high voltage/low amperage operation, and high luminous efficacy. One of the benchmarks for the effectiveness that pressure has on these benefits is the lamp's luminous efficacy. These P-VIP/UHP lamps I've been aspiring to achieve up to 70 lumen/watt, and the Nightsword lamp achieves over 88 lumen/watt. In the meeting I had with the lamp engineers in February they said a lot was put into this to make it really something and now I see what they meant.

The only issue is that because of the much higher power over P-VIP/UHP lamps, it needs a longer arc gap relative to output to retain the same lamp life... in this category of lamps, if the higher power lamp were to have the same surface brightness or luminous concentration, it would have lower lamp life. Lower power lamps in this category have higher luminous concentration for a given lamp life. The lamp engineers went with a larger arc gap relative to output, with lower luminous concentration compared to P-VIP/UHP (still more than Xenon), in order to preserve lamp life with the much higher output. This makes for less candlepower than could be had with a lower power lamp in this category, but with much higher beam power, as discussed earlier in this thread.

The lamp engineers are currently assessing how small an arc gap we can go with while retaining a 200 hour lamp life. I figure 200 hours to be a reasonable life for a lamp optimized for beam power in a portable hand held application, and there will always be the choice for the long life lamp. I'm eagerly waiting to hear their findings of just how small an arc we can go with. We're dropping the lamp life requirement to 1/5th, so I have my fingers crossed for something special. According to my calculation based on the affects arc gap on lamp life in general, there is potential to double the beam power with a super short arc version... one bad *** low life.


----------



## BVH

Get-Lit, at this early point, do you have a projected per-lamp cost for buying one replacement lamp if we wanted to buy a spare with the light? Will both the short-life and long-life lamps cost the same?


----------



## get-lit

500 for the standard short arc, still waiting word on the super short arc.

The cost is much less than a comparable output Xenon lamp because it's low current allows it to use a molybdenum seal for a much smaller overall lamp, although this makes for the anode seal cooling issue in the axial orientation. It also has to vent a lot less heat because of the high luminous efficacy. It vents 1000W less heat than a comparable output Xenon, so the lamp can be much smaller for this reason as well. The length of comparable output Xenon lamps are around twice as long, and all that quartz glass gets expensive to produce. Although the lamp is small and doesn't look like much compared to Xenon quartz lamps, the Quartz glass is much thicker to handle the higher operating pressure. Xenon quarts lamps operate typically at 35-40 atm, while this lamp operates at 200 atm. The lamp has no pressure when cold, operating pressure is determined by the amount of Hg per internal volume. Xenon has no Hg to build pressure under operation, so it has to begin with dangerously high pressure when cold.


----------



## get-lit

Added a blue LED function display/hour meter, etc. Drawings updated. I'm considering locating it facing up, under and to the left of the handle, but not sure.

edit... I'll have it display the run time of the current startup with hours:minutes, and then when powered off display total hours of the current lamp for a short time, followed by total unit hours for a short time.

Also, there will be no cutout for the display, it will be in the mold, with the clear coat layer over it.


----------



## BVH

I was always impressed by the very small size of my Locator 300 Watt lamps relative to their output. Length including bases is less than 3" and diameter of the chamber is about 5/16". I believe it's a Hg Xenon. A pretty purple upon strike and initial warm up.

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...y-Locator-350-Watt-HID&highlight=locator+lamp

The display sounds like a great edition!


----------



## get-lit

I've been very interested in Mercury-Xenon Lamps because they are the middle ground between Xenon Lamps and pure Mercury lamps in respect to efficacy and they have instant output like Xenon. However, pure Mercury still has 75% more output than Mercury-Xenon, and "Super High Pressure" Mercury has better CRI with less emphasized peaks and dips in the spectrum, and color shift toward red for more balanced color and much less UV output. Super High Pressure Mercury is the only lamp technology that takes advantage of high volt/low amp operation for less electrode degradation and powering by small, lightweight ballasts. The ballasts are about half has big and heavy for the same power as Mercury-Xenon, around a third for the same actual lumen output, and even less compared to pure Xenon. I figure these are good trade-offs for the longer startup time. If instant full output is necessary for some applications, lower power Xenon and Mercury-Xenon Lamps could be used with this with mounting adapters, as long as lamp current is 12A or less.

I'm actually interested in making this usable with P-VIP/UHP lamps for around double the candlepower but with less ultimate beam power. The ballast is power selectable, but P-VIP/UHP lamps are AC and the ballast is dedicated to either AC or DC. I wonder if the rectifier could be bypassed for AC output on the DC ballast so that lamps could be interchangeable without changing out the ballast.


----------



## get-lit

The ballast has a low voltage output signal relative to ballast power consumption, so I can connect this to the controller board to display the current output power. I'd then set up a button combo to cycle through the display modes: length of time for the current session, total length of time for current lamp, total length of time for the searchlight, and current output power. Then just save the selected display setting as the default until changed again. Display times would begin as minutes:seconds, and then become hours:minutes after 60 minutes, and I could use a dot as an indicator to differentiate the two. It's amusing to watch the output power ramp up through the start-up cycle and then linger around 1000-1055 watts. The power ramp up begins around 300W, progresses toward 400W as the mercury heats up, hits a threshold around 400W and then quickly rises to full power.


----------



## BVH

Would the 1,000 - 1,055 Watts translate to somewhere around 750 - 800 Watts to the lamp?

I really like the idea of the multi-data display!


----------



## get-lit

..more in the 800-867 range


----------



## ma_sha1

get-lit said:


> I'm actually interested in making this usable with P-VIP/UHP lamps for around double the candlepower but with less ultimate beam power. The ballast is power selectable, but P-VIP/UHP lamps are AC and the ballast is dedicated to either AC or DC. I wonder if the rectifier could be bypassed for AC output on the DC ballast so that lamps could be interchangeable without changing out the ballast.



The P-VIP/UHP ballast i've seen are all ~350V DC fed in nature. Then, they added 110 AC converter, usually a separate piece for DLP projector to use 110AC. So you don't need a AC ballast.

But I don't think there are P-VIP/UHP lamp anywhere near 1000W, the highest is about 350W at the moment, however, I think it may throw just as far as your 1000W, at much lower power consumption. I think it's an very attractive alternative & possibly can be produced at lower cost as you'll be going for production lamp not custom lamp.

The lamp life will be around 3-4000 hours also, will never need a spare.


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> ..more in the 800-900 range


 That's great ballast efficiency!


----------



## get-lit

ma_sha1 said:


> The P-VIP/UHP ballast i've seen are all ~350V DC fed in nature. Then, they added 110 AC converter, usually a separate piece for DLP projector to use 110AC. So you don't need a AC ballast.



This ballast is power selectable down to 400W, and it accepts 120VAC and 120VDC. There's a nice 330W with just 1mm arc gap, so just maybe, it could be pushed to 400W with extra cooling and reduced lamp life.



ma_sha1 said:


> But I don't think there are P-VIP/UHP lamp anywhere near 1000W, the highest is about 350W at the moment, however, I think it may throw just as far as your 1000W, at much lower power consumption. I think it's an very attractive alternative & possibly can be produced at lower cost as you'll be going for production lamp not custom lamp.



The 330W 1mm arc gap P-VIP lamp I mentioned would actually have considerable more candlepower than the lamp I'm using, however the beam would not be as visible in the air due to less overall beam power as a result of 1/3 the lumen output, if you recall this *discussion about candlepower vs. beam power*. I decided early on to go the direction of beam power over candlepower. It would be nice to be able to interchange both lamps with the same searchlight. Again the issue is the the P-VIP lamps are AC and the lamp I'm using is DC, and maybe bypassing the DC rectifier on the ballast would provide AC for the P-VIP lamps. Another issue is obtaining P-VIP lamps without the integrated reflector. I've tried and Osram won't produce them without the integrated reflector.


----------



## ma_sha1

get-lit said:


> Another issue is obtaining P-VIP lamps without the integrated reflector. I've tried and Osram won't produce them without the integrated reflector.



True, I had to break the reflector to retrieve the bare P-VIP/UHP bulbs for the Moon & Swan blaster.
I wear a face mask, but still, the bulb is 800PSI cold, pretty nerve wracking experience.


----------



## BVH

Anything new on the NightSword front?


----------



## get-lit

On hold for now. I don't get decent weather year round like the West Coast, Winters here are horrible and I'm taking advantage of the Summer while I can. Will be back at it in full force in the Fall.


----------



## get-lit

I did another series of comparisons to make myself feel better about coping with the ridiculously difficult cooling and flood solutions with the long FL as opposed to short FL.

In a nutshell, the fully optimized long-FL with rear-facing retro-reflector would produce 79% of the candlepower of a fully optimized short-FL with forward-facing retro-reflector, but within an area 835% of the short FL. As per previous discussions, it's more about beam power than candlepower for this application. The equivalent of 8.35 beams of 79% of the candlepower still produces 6.6 times the amount light within the beam and on target. Yes this is a good reminder for myself that coping with difficult cooling and flood solutions is worth it. I look forward to resuming this soon.


----------



## BVH

Those indeed, are big differences. Let's hear it for Long Focal Length! Yeah!


----------



## TEEJ

Side thought...can you imagine the set up with an IR filter for use with night vision equipment?

This would expand practical uses of the light by a large demographic....a demographic that currently pays thousands for HID IR spot lights for this purpose.


----------



## get-lit

That's do-able after the light is complete.

Hmmm... Blue Chrome Finish


----------



## shuen

WOW so amazing! I need to order a pair of glove.


----------



## get-lit

I apologize for how long it's taking. The planning, experimentation and design turned out to take a lot more time than I anticipated, particularly due to the complexity that comes with such a high efficient system. It would have been much easier if it were a big, heavy, inefficient Xenon light. The unexpected costs also put me behind, and I keep having to wait to get caught up with expenses. Also need to take a break from the project at times to regain my senses. Taking time away and coming back has really helped shape the direction of the project and actually saved considerable time and cost by allowing me to break out of extended trains of thought and experimentation I get caught up in and choose alternatives that best suit the final objectives. For instance, I've invested so much time into designing a fresnel diffuser to address the flood hole issue and coping with additional issues and complexities having to do with a fresnel diffuser. Taking a break got me out of that rut and coming back to it with fresh eyes is making me realize it may be worth accepting a flood hole over the a fresnel diffuser for the goals of this light.


----------



## Rat

WOW” I read this whole thread the other night and my brain is still spinning. I had to come back and say something. I cannot contribute with any knowledge as I am way out of my depth here but I felt the need to say something as it’s so amazing.
Get-lit: Just amazing amount of effort and it shows. The end drawings wow what an amazing light it’s going to be. You have so much talent it’s so professionally done 

I am going to start a Nightsword fund  so take your time please :devil: I think a light of this caliber will be way out of my budget but it’s going to be so cool when all your guys have them and are showing us all what they can do I cannot wait.

Keep the good work up I now will be following the thread till the end that's for sure.

:wave:


----------



## get-lit

Thank you very much!

I found a large secluded rectangular plot of open land out in the middle of the woods behind the house where I would be able to get actual Lux measurements and compare axial vs perpendicular lamp orientation, but I need portable power. There's three options I'm considering for portable power...

The Honda EU1000i is the lightest and quietest portable generator at 29 lbs. It would power the light for hours but it's too expensive for me now.

A cheap and possibly even lighter solution is a DIY DC generator with a small gas engine and a used 10 lb. treadmill motor. The light accepts 120V DC or AC, so a simple DC generator should work.

Another option I'm interested in is possibly using Panasonic NCR18650B batteries. 40 of them would power the light for a 1/2 hour and would weigh 4 lbs. They would need to be in series in order to not need an inverter. From what I gather from reading Walterk's posts in other threads, series is safe as long as each cell has its protection circuit and they are all independently charged to the same voltage.

I very much like the battery solution but I have two concerns. First is I'm not sure what a maximum number of these cells can be used in series, 40 of them would have s voltage of 120V-167V depending on the charge.

The second concern is having to charge 40 cells separately. I know it's possible to use a single high power charger with a custom controller circuit built into the battery pack to properly manage the charge voltages of the cells, like eBike batteries etc. I'll have to look around for a such a controller circuit. Still, I'm not sure about how many cells can be used in series with these batteries.


----------



## TEEJ

With an inverter perhaps, but what I use to power some HID's with cig lighter adapters, etc, are those portable car starters. Many of them have three prong receptacles, USB ports, cig lighter receptacles, etc.

They are typically lead acid, but, if you could use one, its pretty easy to use at least. A few car batteries can also be hooked up with a few cables and/or jumper cables, etc.


----------



## BVH

In planning for the NightSword and how to power it and after a long time thinking about it, I sold my 20-year old Honda EF1000 with less than 25 hours of use because I wanted a new and quieter and "cleaner power" small inverter genny. I wrestled with the high 20-pounder, 1KW (surge) Honda and Yamaha with their light weight but with their limited power. I finally decided on a 2KW (surge) Yamaha versus the Honda competition. The Yamaha has: Cast Iron cylinder sleeve versus coated aluminum bore for Honda. Separate fuel shut off valve so you can run the carb out of fuel for storage versus Honda which is incorporated with the on/off switch. Visible gas gauge versus Honda with no fuel level indication. All metal camshaft, governor gear and oil splasher versus a plastic lobe camshaft, plastic governor gear and plastic oil splasher in the Honda. Both are within $10.00 of each other and both are within 1db of each other. Chances are the 2KW generator (Yamaha or Honda) will run quieter when powering the NightSword than will the Yamaha or Honda 1KW generators as engine RPM will be considerably less. My back is not in great shape but I can hoist around the Yamaha 2KW with little issue. It's also nice having the extra power of the 2KW should I need it to power portions of my house during an extended power outage.


----------



## get-lit

Thank for sharing your inverter research. I've been eying the Honda EU1000i and have watched youtube videos to get a sense of the loudness, as it's supposedly the quietest. It seems much louder at full power and I could perceive how a 2000W might be quieter running at a lower RPM for 1000W. 29 lbs is what I really like about the EU1000i, the price not so much.

I could put some time into mating a 2.5-LB 2-HP Zenoah RC gas engine to a 10 lb 1.5-HP treadmill motor, that would be a great solution for under 15 lbs. Louder, but super light-weight for portability and very cost effective. Another alternative would be a 2.5-LB 2-HP Zenoah RC gas engine driving a 1/4-LB 1000W 12v RC motor into an inverter.

I'd really like to explore these ideas, but I prefer to dedicate my time to completing the actual light, so I've decided to just get an inverter for now and take measurements under car power. I'm finding several possible unpaved access roads to other rectangular plots of open land using Google Maps satellite.


----------



## BVH

The 1KW inverter Honda and the 2KW inverter Honda have the same published db ratings and therefore, so does the 2KW Yamaha give or take a db. For only $200 more, (about 40% more money) you get nearly 80% more (900 vrs 1,600) continuous Watts when going with the 2KW. The only penalty is the extra weight. When I'm running the NS, idealy, there would be no other ambient noises present other than the lights' fan. But since that doesn't seem feasible at this point, I chose the quietest system with a slight weight penalty. I'll have a long power cord and the genny will be 25 or so feet away. Even 15 feet makes a BIGG difference in noise levels.

Please give details on the inverter setup you end up using.


----------



## get-lit

The three topologies for inverters are Square Wave, Modified Sine Wave and True Sine Wave. True Sine Wave is ideal for an electronic ballast but is bigger, heavier and costlier. Modified Sine Wave may work but I'm not sure it's worth it to try. Square Wave is out.

*Here's an overview of available True Sine Wave Inverters* (Image too wide to post)

Xantrex PROwatt SW line is by far the most reputable, but the 1000W is rated only at 900W continuous.
The 2000W is larger, heavier, and expensive but probably the best bet for dependability, features, and overhead.
The KISAE SW1210 is a gamble because there's no reviews.
I'm probably going to give a go at the Samlex SSW-1000-12A, can't resist the small size and low weight.


----------



## BVH

The 900 - 1000 Watt NS will need around 90 Amps of current from the 12 Volt DC battery(s). What is your battery system going to consist of?


----------



## get-lit

For now, just car with engine running for 10-minute tests at a time.

For the heck of it I'm going to attempt a Modified Sine Wave since they're so inexpensive.

*Here's an overview of available Modified Sine Wave Inverters* (Image too wide to post)

I'll try the the BESTEK MRI10011-1. The light accepts both 110V+ AC and 110V+ DC, so if the AC sine wave isn't clean enough, maybe the AC conversion can be circumvented, and use a capacitor for DC filtering.


----------



## get-lit

I also did some more reading up on high voltage battery packs using lithium ion cells in series and I see it's done all the time in the ebike forums, hundreds of volts just fine using a suitable BMS (Battery Management System) which is a small electronic board built into the packs. Fairly inexpensive high power chargers (240W to 4000W) can be set for the matching voltage and plugged into the the battery pack's BMS with a single connection and single charge session for each charge. The BMS monitors and controls each cell's voltage and charge capacity independently.

Currently, Panasonic NCR18650B have the highest energy density.
Energy capacity is reduced with discharge rate (*chart*).
The configuration below would keep discharge rates and capacity loss reasonable...

*Panasonic NCR18650B*
Max. Discharge rate: 2C (6.8A)
Max. Charge rate: 1C (3.4A)
Cell Voltage Range: 2.5V - 4.2V
Configuration: 50S2P (50 Series x 2 Parallel)
Pack Voltage Range: 125V - 210V
Cost: $7.20 Each Cell x 100 Cells = $720.00 Total (+BMS/Wire/Materials)
Pack Weight: 45g Each Cell x 100 Cells = 4500g Total (9.92 lbs.)
Pack Capacity: 12.2 Wh Each Cell x 100 Cells = 1220 Wh
Energy Density: 0.2711 Wh/g
Pack Discharge: 1220 Wh @ 1000W = 1 Hours 13.2 Minutes
"Min Voltage" Amperage: 1000W / 125V /2P = 4A
Capacity @ 4A: 83.6%
"Max Voltage" Amperage: 1000W / 210V /2P = 2.38A
Capacity @ 2.38A: 88.1%
"Average Amperage" Capacity: 85.85% 
Estimated Total Run Time: *1 Hour 2.8 Minutes*
Charge Time @ Max Charge Rate: *1 Hour*

So a 10-pound battery pack should power the light for an hour and could be charged within an hour. With this method, no other components such as inverters or converters would be needed. I would imagine that a small backpack or shoulder strap would be fine for carrying such a battery pack. An hour is a long time for this sort of light, 5 minutes already attracts all the neighborhood monster bugs and curious cars.


----------



## BVH

I'm familiar with these as I have a 36 Volt Ebike that uses a Nimh pack in the front hub as battery #1 and a 10AH Lipo as the second battery. It uses the pouch cells though, not cylindrical cells. The only thing I'm not really jumping for joy for is the Lipo chemistry for use close to your body. The second Lipo battery is what drove this company out of business as it was claimed that a pack self-ignited one night in a bicycle shop and burned it down. A voluntary recall of all packs sent the under. I just sent of an email to a company in Hong Kong that makes custom LiFeP04 pouch packs asking if they can make a single custom pack or multiple packs that will work with BMS's in parallel. The stock 75 Volt packs so maybe they can. Yes, there would be a weight penalty but safety would be greatly increased. Probably cost more, too.


----------



## get-lit

Panasonic NCR18650B are Lithium-Ion.

EDIT: This is just an outline for a battery pack, not something I'll be taking on until after the Nightsword is complete.


----------



## get-lit

The weather is cooling off and I'm getting back into the groove here. Fresh eyes brought some small but worthwhile refinements. Made further improvements to the air intake for it to be another inch shorter in length. An outer filter screen blocks snow, mist, and cottonwood seed from clogging the air filter inside. It will be hydrophillc to function as a mist eliminator. I'm using hydrophobic materials on the air intake baffles as an added precaution against water seepage with air flow toward the air filter. I've also squared off the bottom rear of the housing, rather than fully circular. This is for anti-roll without needing the rear base plate. The inch saved by reducing the length of the air intake length freed up space to move the electronics housing a 1/2 inch rearward to assist in weight balance and to accommodate larger optic housing longitudinal supports for additional strength and cleaner lines, as well as additional thumb space forward of the hand. The other half of the saved inch was applied to make the housing a 1/2 inch shorter overall.

There are still four longitudinal supports for the optic housing: a top, bottom, and two sides. I've enlarged the bottom support for strength while the top is smaller to accommodate more thumb space. The sides have the most open space to make use of, and will be the largest supports, with a very pronounced tapering off all the way toward the rear air intake.

Here's a simple outline. Not doing a new render at this point. I'm happy with these updates and will be getting away from the desk to get some field work accomplished next. Planning to have horizontal beam shots with Lux measurements.






Also regarding a battery, it's best to do this last because nano technology is about to bring some significant gains in energy storage.


----------



## BVH

I can't wait to see the horizontal shots! All the refinements mentioned sound great, too!


----------



## The_Driver

I'm also very excited to see the shots. 

@get-lit: your pm box is full...


----------



## get-lit

Ok I see thanks. Been keeping messages for reference with BVH regarding development. Deleted some to make room.


----------



## The_Driver

get-lit said:


> Ok I see thanks. Been keeping messages for reference with BVH regarding development. Deleted some to make room.



Thanks. Sent you a pm. 
BTW: you can archive messages by saving them in text files. You don't have to lose the information when you delete them. 

Regarding the nightsword: since you are using a Xenon bulb much like the Maxabeam, will the light also warm up as quickly (1s?)?


----------



## get-lit

This had been discussed.. the very aspect that makes this caliber of light possible in a portable application also requires a warm up. The lamp is Mercury-based like projector lamps, which in a nutshell requires a much smaller and lighter-weight ballast (about 1/20 the weight) and consumes half the power for equivalent output as Xenon, among a few other size, weight, and efficiency benefits. Here's some helpful info from previous discussions...
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...word-project&p=4133901&viewfull=1#post4133901
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...word-project&p=3845691&viewfull=1#post3845691
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...word-project&p=4228209&viewfull=1#post4228209


Regarding the beam calculator in your PM, it could work just as well for LEDs. There needs to be a luminance profile generated for each LED model. The luminance profile is generated by taking a measurement of relative luminance for each angle from 0° (front of emitter) to 180° (back emitter). Of course for LED measurements are only needed up to 90° (perpendicular). Alternatively, I could generate the profiles from luminance profile charts in the LED data sheets.

I would also have to modify the calculator for the "apparent" shape of the source since it's not ellipsoidal. Assigning a mathematical representation of the source shape takes a lot of time to do, and this would also have to be done again for de-domed.

It took a lot of time and extreme patience to arrive at a formula for the "apparent size" of the source "at each angle" for the ellipsoidal shape source:

AngledSourceHeight = sqrt((SourceWidth X SourceWidth X cos(deg2rad(curSourceAngle)) X cos(deg2rad(curSourceAngle)))+(SourceHeight X SourceHeight X sin(deg2rad(curSourceAngle)) X sin(deg2rad(curSourceAngle))))

It looks like a mess, but I've proofed it be fully accurate.

I don't currently have incentive to put the time and effort in to do this for LEDs, I created the beam calculator to optimize the design of this project and I'm remaining focused on this project. Also, the beam calculator is too server intensive to provide public use.


----------



## BVH

Keep in-mind that a moment after strike, there will probably be thousands of Lumens being produced already so I would expect the beam to be usable pretty much instantly relative to a Polarion-type of light and its required warm-up time. I'm just drawing these numbers out of a hat for discussion sake. Lets say the PH50 produces 5,000 Lumens once warmed up. I would speculate that within 1/2 second after strike, there are at least 2,000 Lumens being produced. IIRC, the NS lamp produces around 70,000 Lumens once warmed up. Would it be fair to say that within 1/2 second, there would be at least 10,000 Lumens being produced? If so, then I don't see how "required warm up time" is even an issue worthy of significant discussion. Yes, its fun to know and probably worthy of mention but from a user standpoint, it's probably not an issue. Getlit, is there a spec of Lumens produced at various stages of warmup?


----------



## get-lit

"The power ramp up begins at 300W, progresses toward 400W as the mercury heats up, hits a threshold around 400W and then quickly rises to full power." (Original Post)

If luminous efficacy were to remain the same throughout the start up, that would be around 26K lumen upon fire up, but luminous efficacy does not remain the same through power up because the mercury has not heated to its vapor state required to produce efficient output, so I'd put a very rough guess that initial start up is 1/2 the efficacy, so maybe 13K Lumen at the lamp. For the practical mid-range uses, there will be plenty of usable light straight away.


----------



## The_Driver

get-lit said:


> This had been discussed.. the very aspect that makes this caliber of light possible in a portable application also requires a warm up. The lamp is Mercury-based like projector lamps, which in a nutshell requires a much smaller and lighter-weight ballast (about 1/20 the weight) and consumes half the power for equivalent output as Xenon, among a few other size, weight, and efficiency benefits. Here's some helpful info from previous discussions...
> http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...word-project&p=4133901&viewfull=1#post4133901
> http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...word-project&p=3845691&viewfull=1#post3845691
> http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...word-project&p=4228209&viewfull=1#post4228209
> 
> 
> Regarding the beam calculator in your PM, it could work just as well for LEDs. There needs to be a luminance profile generated for each LED model. The luminance profile is generated by taking a measurement of relative luminance for each angle from 0° (front of emitter) to 180° (back emitter). Of course for LED measurements are only needed up to 90° (perpendicular). Alternatively, I could generate the profiles from luminance profile charts in the LED data sheets.
> 
> I would also have to modify the calculator for the "apparent" shape of the source since it's not ellipsoidal. Assigning a mathematical representation of the source shape takes a lot of time to do, and this would also have to be done again for de-domed.
> 
> It took a lot of time and extreme patience to arrive at a formula for the "apparent size" of the source "at each angle" for the ellipsoidal shape source:
> 
> AngledSourceHeight = sqrt((SourceWidth X SourceWidth X cos(deg2rad(curSourceAngle)) X cos(deg2rad(curSourceAngle)))+(SourceHeight X SourceHeight X sin(deg2rad(curSourceAngle)) X sin(deg2rad(curSourceAngle))))
> 
> It looks like a mess, but I've proofed it be fully accurate.
> 
> I don't currently have incentive to put the time and effort in to do this for LEDs, I created the beam calculator to optimize the design of this project and I'm remaining focused on this project. Also, the beam calculator is too server intensive to provide public use.



Ok, I guess I was a bit lazy there. Thanks for taking the time to post the links. I have read the entire thread, but I don't have all of it memorized. 

Regarding the beam calculator: you seem to be one of the few people who have the ability to realize something like this. I understand that you don't have time and all, but I think a lot of people would be grateful if you adapted the calculator at some point in the future. 

There must be a way of doing it without making a new model for every led type. As far as I know they all work the same. Maybe one would need to need to know the size of the dome on the led, but than can be measured. 

If you made an application out of it that can you can run on one's own computer, you wouldn't have server issues with it. 



BVH said:


> Keep in-mind that a moment after strike, there will probably be thousands of Lumens being produced already so I would expect the beam to be usable pretty much instantly relative to a Polarion-type of light and its required warm-up time. I'm just drawing these numbers out of a hat for discussion sake. Lets say the PH50 produces 5,000 Lumens once warmed up. I would speculate that within 1/2 second after strike, there are at least 2,000 Lumens being produced. IIRC, the NS lamp produces around 70,000 Lumens once warmed up. Would it be fair to say that within 1/2 second, there would be at least 10,000 Lumens being produced? If so, then I don't see how "required warm up time" is even an issue worthy of significant discussion. Yes, its fun to know and probably worthy of mention but from a user standpoint, it's probably not an issue. Getlit, is there a spec of Lumens produced at various stages of warmup?





get-lit said:


> "The power ramp up begins at 300W, progresses toward 400W as the mercury heats up, hits a threshold around 400W and then quickly rises to full power." (Original Post)
> 
> If luminous efficacy were to remain the same throughout the start up, that would be around 26K lumen upon fire up, but luminous efficacy does not remain the same through power up because the mercury has not heated to its vapor state required to produce efficient output, so I'd put a very rough guess that initial start up is 1/2 the efficacy, so maybe 13K Lumen at the lamp. For the practical mid-range uses, there will be plenty of usable light straight away.



Ok, I understand.


----------



## get-lit

An example of what needs to be converted to values is the first chart named "Typical Spatial Distribution" on page 7 for XM-L2...
http://www.cree.com/led-components-and-modules/products/xlamp/discrete-directional/xlamp-xml2

This can't be used for other LEDs, XR-E LEDs yield much different results. This only needs to be done once for each LED. I could make a drop down selection for each LED type after they've been entered. This is the easy part. Writing a function for the shape of the facing luminance of the LED iterating over each facing angle takes a lot of time and headache that I'd consider putting myself through, but only after this project is complete.


----------



## get-lit

Very happy to successfully complete a key cooling test for the anode seal cooling issue in axial orientation without requiring a separate air flow, by using the diverter method I had outlined *here*. As those who've followed along are well aware, this solves one of the biggest, if not the biggest obstacle all along. The anode seal, cathode seal, and retro-reflector are all effectively cooled in axial orientation. This lifts a big weight off the project, but this was a preliminary test of feasibility and now I've got to begin assembly of a prototype assembly. The assembly will bolt onto the anode end of the lamp and will include an air funnel with the air diverter and retro-reflector all in one.

EDIT: Unfortunately I will still need another mandrel made for the retro-reflector to optimize it for use with the diverter and I won't have the funds for that for several months, so I will be progressing in other areas in the meantime.


----------



## TEEJ

You Sir are an engineering tour de force.


----------



## get-lit

Thank you. Saving up for the new mandrel cost won't set anything back. Coming back fresh into the project after having a great Summer helped me see slight new improvements in three areas to test out. First, I will be testing to confirm the air flow and air/water separation ability of the new exhaust design optimized for the new anode cooling assembly. Second, I will be testing to confirm the air flow and air/water/mist/dust separation ability of the smaller intake design. Third, I will be testing the lamp mount and alignment assembly which I had also just slightly revised. I will be working with BVH on test parts for these. I will also be programming the controller board.

Another revision I just made to the exhaust is going from 2.5" diameter exhaust tube to 3" diameter exhaust tube, which allows the tube to be shorter with a stronger bond to the lens so that the three support trusses are not needed. As you might recall, the larger diameter reduces light output, but I'm using glass for the front surface of the tube so that output is not significantly lost with the larger diameter. The new exhaust is not reflected in the last B&W drawing. I won't be doing new renders as I work on the next steps.

EDIT: I'm also interested in an AR coating for the lens. Would be great to gain another 8 or 9% boost in output with a bit less heat from absorption into the lens.


----------



## The_Driver

get-lit said:


> An example of what needs to be converted to values is the first chart named "Typical Spatial Distribution" on page 7 for XM-L2...
> http://www.cree.com/led-components-and-modules/products/xlamp/discrete-directional/xlamp-xml2
> 
> This can't be used for other LEDs, XR-E LEDs yield much different results. This only needs to be done once for each LED. I could make a drop down selection for each LED type after they've been entered. This is the easy part. Writing a function for the shape of the facing luminance of the LED iterating over each facing angle takes a lot of time and headache that I'd consider putting myself through, but only after this project is complete.



Ok, I understand! 



get-lit said:


> EDIT: I'm also interested in an AR coating for the lens. Would be great to gain another 8 or 9% boost in output with a bit less heat from absorption into the lens.



I am also very interested in this. I still haven't found a company that offers larger (>10cm diameter) pieces of round glass which are ar coated.


----------



## BVH

They're here in the states so not sure if much help. They made me a high-heat 5.8" round front window for my 600 Watt Minigun light. They also offer coatings further down the main web page.

ww.newportglass.com/


----------



## get-lit

Thanks, I'll be contacting them.

This was my third tiresome all nighter in a row running tests to optimize the exhaust dimensions. I began with a larger size tube bent from aluminum sheet to form the funnel, and incrementally reduced the front and separately the back ends of the funnel with each test until I found the optimal dimensions. Incidentally, I found there is a ratio of funnel dimensions that completely eliminates the need for the diverter. Anode seal temps are now maintained to half the max pinch temp, which is excellent, by far the lowest I've been able to accomplish without over cooling the lamp in the axial orientation. I sometimes wonder why I go through all of this aggravation to explore further when I could just go with what I've already figured out, and then comes along a surprise ah-ha moment like this... very happy!


----------



## edgar

How you get 9% (light) output with AR coating , and wich side are you coating ?

Iam curious about that .


----------



## BVH

The detail on not needing a diverter and cooling the seals to .5 of max is great news and a great find thru experimentation! I will add that I had to stay very on top of Newport Glass to keep things moving so don't be surprised if you do also. Email did not work well - phone calls to Ray Larsen is what it took and even then, needed to call more frequently than I thought I should. He uses just a general company email. I think it's a small mom & pop type of company.

newportglass.sales [@] gmail [dot] com


----------



## The_Driver

edgar said:


> How you get 9% (light) output with AR coating , and wich side are you coating ?
> 
> Iam curious about that .



A normal glass lens typically has a transmission rate of 92%. A glass lens with ar coating on both sides will typically have 98-99%. Some really expensive ones can get up to about 99,7% or so.



get-lit said:


> This was my third tiresome all nighter in a row running tests to optimize the exhaust dimensions. I began with a larger size tube bent from aluminum sheet to form the funnel, and incrementally reduced the front and separately the back ends of the funnel with each test until I found the optimal dimensions. Incidentally, I found there is a ratio of funnel dimensions that completely eliminates the need for the diverter. Anode seal temps are now maintained to half the max pinch temp, which is excellent, by far the lowest I've been able to accomplish without over cooling the lamp in the axial orientation. I sometimes wonder why I go through all of this aggravation to explore further when I could just go with what I've already figured out, and then comes along a surprise ah-ha moment like this... very happy!



I would love to see some pictures of your tests like of the bulb in the reflector. I'm guessing you're scared that someone might copy your work?


----------



## get-lit

Thanks for the feedback on them. I'd have patience if the price is reasonable, but to a point.

I get wrapped up in experimentation and the last thing on my mind is looking for the camera and posting pics of a jumbled mess. With each step, I have just a single objective on my mind.. recording the results of the current dimension modification. There's not much to see anyhow, the tests are without the reflector, just the lamp in the old retro-reflector (modded now) which I had posted a pic of, DC fan, funnel-shaped aluminum, foil tape (your best friend), temp probes, differential pressure sensor, air flow & air speed sensor. I've given plenty details for others to taken on similar projects, including the exact reflector dimensions. I have a shared ownership of the mandrel with Phoenix Electroformed, and they can be purchased by anyone directly through them. They are excellent by the way, very responsive and pleasure to work with. However, I wouldn't want the final design of the light simply copied 100% so I will be protecting the alignment method of the lamp and the water separation method of the ventilation. Here's a pic of the mandrel...


----------



## Patriot

get-lit said:


> This was my third tiresome all nighter in a row running tests to optimize the exhaust dimensions. I began with a larger size tube bent from aluminum sheet to form the funnel, and incrementally reduced the front and separately the back ends of the funnel with each test until I found the optimal dimensions. Incidentally, I found there is a ratio of funnel dimensions that completely eliminates the need for the diverter. Anode seal temps are now maintained to half the max pinch temp, which is excellent, by far the lowest I've been able to accomplish without over cooling the lamp in the axial orientation. I sometimes wonder why I go through all of this aggravation to explore further when I could just go with what I've already figured out, and then comes along a surprise ah-ha moment like this... very happy!




It's amazing to me that you still make these kinds of discoveries after having spent so long on all the details up to this point. It reminds me of a Formula One aerodynamicist who spends thousands of cumulative hours sculpting a racing monocoque to be 3% more efficient than the previous year's car. Almost by accident, he later he discovers that adding a simple strake to the leading edge of the side pod increases efficiency by 5%.... 

You're crazy mad, Get-lit! But in a great way! haha!


----------



## get-lit

Crazy for sure! I have to work through headaches when learning about, and choosing among, the pros and cons of each design choice.

I made a crude assembly for head wind pressure tests in the car to measure useable head-wind speeds.






I've found that a strong single fan just won't cut it. It's only good for up to 25 mph, so the fan choices are narrowed down to two new Sanyo Denki fans.

*This is the single fan*. Good for up to 25 mph. Uses a small 20W DC converter.
*
This is a new fan released this past year*. This fan most efficiently produces pressure and would be the quietest fan but it would also be the heaviest. It uses two full size fans and requires a larger 40W DC converter. Total net weight with the larger DC converter would be 1/2 lb more than the single fan. This fan would suit a 50 mph head wind.

*This is a new fan released this month*. This fan produces the most pressure and is smaller than the above fan but would be about 2/3 louder. It uses two small-size high-power fans and also requires the same larger 40W DC converter, and would take full advantage of the larger DC converter. Net weight with the larger DC converter would be 1/3 lb more than the single fan. This fan would suit around a 60 mph head wind.

Noise would really only be an issue when operating against head wind. The controller board will use an air speed/flow sensor within the housing to throttle the fans against head wind as needed. I'm really interested in the last fan with the punch it packs in a small size, with a net 34,100 RPM at full power (when needed) it would work like a race engine, whereas the larger double fan would work more like a luxury engine, not as loud under all conditions but not as much ultimate pressure.

Also, initial water spray tests so far are indicating this will pass easily IP65, which is suitable for marine use, and I'll be attempting *IP66* for heavy marine.

EDIT: Of course anything requiring faster head winds would eventually use the heavier head-wind optimized bezel already described, but for general hand-held operation, that bezel would be a bit front heavy.


----------



## Rat

Hi Gents
I follow this thread with every new post. I do not post in here because you guys are way out of my league on this technology and there is nothing I can really add.


But I must say that I do not think a loud fan is a big deal. I personally would like a loud fan on a monster like this. It's sort of telling everybody this light means business. It's is one of the points I like about the Megaray.

keep up the good work :thumbsup:

cheers


----------



## BVH

I've experienced loud fans on many of my lights and I'm of the opposite opinion. They sound great in the garage and when making videos but for out in the field use, I'd rather have it quiet and lighter weight. Is there a possibility that the "up to 25 mph" quieter and lighter fan can be used on the non heavier head wind optimized version of the light?


----------



## get-lit

Absolutely. The fans are interchangeable. I'll make the DC converters interchangeable as well. The selection would be among the single fan and high-power double fan. The housing would have to be larger to accommodate the large double fan, so it would be excluded.


----------



## get-lit

BVH, the high-power double-fan is actually the same loudness as the single fan when producing equivalent flow and pressure. Without head wind, they will both be just as quiet. The high-power double-fan would only get louder when pressurizing against head winds beyond the capability of the single fan. The much increased head wind capability greatly increases versatility for boating and off-roading etc. The high-power double-fan is also slightly more energy efficient. The only downside is the 1/3 lb additional weight with the larger DC converter. However, the weight would be located toward the rear of the light housing, further off-setting the weight of the optics housing/reflector/lens for more weight balance. With these considerations in mind, I probably won't be making these with the single fan.


----------



## BVH

OK, that all sounds like the way to go. I was more concerned about noise than weight and in my uses, there won't be any additional noise and the light will be better balanced.


----------



## get-lit

Here's a pic of the assembly I've set up for testing optimal airflow ducting shapes, sizes, and air flow volume and speed. It's basically an air-tight enclosure made of aluminum and drywall for the walls, painted black to absorb the light for measuring the "worst case" cooling scenario, such as the addition of an IR filter etc. I call it the "light oven" because it quickly gets much too hot to touch from the emitted light becoming absorbed into heat...






EDIT: All paper backings removed from dry wall of course. I should also clarify, the previously recommended foil tape is the thick aluminum foil tape with wax-paper backing. Not the cheap non-backed foil tape that I thought I'd save a few bucks on the second time around, that stuff really sucks. Completely worthless. The unbacked stuff is thin and terribly weak, doesn't hold a form, melts with heat, and won't even stick to itself when wrapping around an object. I've learned that if a tape uses wax-paper backing to keep from bonding to itself on the roll, it's probably good stuff.


----------



## BVH

All I can say is that every time I get a spare $5er, $10er and sometimes a $20er, it goes in the safe in the envelope marked NS. This is going to be an unmatched piece of technical hardware in form, function and performance!


----------



## get-lit

Testing with this enclosure needed to be done before the light housing mold because I needed to optimize the size and shape of the exhaust ducting in order to minimize the air flow required to cool the anode seal. The lower the required air flow, the smaller the large intake ducting needs to be while retaining effective air/water/dust separation. That's why I had to do this before the final mold for the light housing is done.

Also, it was very quiet while testing even at full power. The final light housing will be just as sealed as this enclosure, and with much more rigid walls, with the exhaust and intake ducting blocking much of the fan noise, this will turn out to be fairly quiet after all, practically inaudible from a short distance.

EDIT: The rough drywall surface inside this test enclosure might be helping attenuate the noise. On the electronics housing of the final light housing, I'll apply thin layer of sound absorption material which would be much more effective. It still sounds business up close even though it's quiet, because you can still hear the high RPM of the fan and the whoosh of the exiting air.


----------



## Knifefeak

Awesome light, glad to hear you eyes got better get-lit. Look forward to seeing more of your progress.


----------



## get-lit

Thanks knifefeak.

I've completed temp testing with the test enclosure and found that I will have to go with 33% more air flow than anticipated in order to accommodate the movement of the anode seal away from the optimal cooling point when defocusing the light, so it won't be as quiet as I had described, but still not loud. Now onto finalizing the intake ducting size to accommodate air/water/mist/dust separation with this new air flow.

EDIT: Fairly excited to find a real cheap and easy way to make the many parts I need for the intake and exhaust, a slip roll machine.


----------



## get-lit

This might be somewhat boring to others here, but it's been very interesting learning about the interaction of air, water, and mist with air speed. There's a threshold of maximum air speed at which air begins to draw water through the air/water separation ducting, not good. There's also a threshold of minimum air speed required for fine mist in the air to impinge and attach (entrainment) to the ducting to become extracted from the incoming air. By maintaining an air speed within both these thresholds, and optimizing certain ducting surfaces for air/water separation and optimizing other certain ducting surfaces for air/mist separation, the intake will effectively serve both functions in a fairly simple and easy to make assembly, thanks in part to the slip roll machine. I'm expecting IP66 from any spray angle, and from any operating orientation.

EDIT: I've been plugging away at ironing out these issues before doing the horizontal beam shots and lux measurements because I anticipate those tests making me too excited to remain very patient through these issues in order to resolve them best. It's like forcing yourself to eat the green beans before the steak, otherwise you know you won't finish the green beans. Sure everything will be encapsulated and water, mist, and dust won't be detrimental, but eliminating the possibility of them entering the light would allow the use of high reflectance aluminum coated optics for 20-30% more output and full lamp durability in all weather conditions.


----------



## BVH

I know exactly what you mean about the excitement of doing the horizontal shots. Here I've had the 800 Watt Trakkabeam and the 1,600 Watt NightSun for how many months now and I haven't done any meaningful beamshots. But I'm excited when thinking about doing them. The two big issues for me are:

1. Will my 4.5KW (4.0KW continuous) 120/240 generator provide enough power to power the Realtec 100 Amp DC rectifier with the starting load of the NightSun.
2. The noise and brilliant light beam factors being generated in a close by, new neighborhood.

The max amp draw of the Realtech is 21 @ 240 Volts input. That's for the full 29 VDC/100 Amp output. When running, the NS is pulling 62 Amps @ 28 VDC according to the analog ammeter on the Realtech so lets say about 65% of capacity. So 21 x's 65% = 13.65 Amps @ 240V to provide the light with 62 Amps @28 VDC. The generator can sustain 16.6 Amps @ 240V. So the realtec should easily handle the running Amps. The max starting load for the generator is 18.75 Amps @ 240V. I am guessing that the starting current of the light is going to impose a 240V load higher than that so I'm hesitant in even trying it. However, when plugged into 240V house current, the light starts just fine so the starting current must impose a 240V load of less than 21 Amps. So it's close. That's the dilemma.

I'm also concerned about neighbors calling the police. While it might be perfectly legal to shine the light out over my test range (miles of rolling hills ((private land)) with no dwellings or risk of lighting up vehicle or aircraft traffic) - it also might NOT be legal. I don't know.


----------



## get-lit

Wow, the Nighsun power supply is over 92% efficient, assuming the Nightsun is running the lamp at 1600 Watts. That's really good.

As far as I've been able to find as of yet, there are no laws within the US regarding searchlights, other than FAA guidelines for searchlight operators to notify nearby airports of times and location of operation. There may be some municipalities that have their own local laws, possibly NYC. It would be nice to know where they're locally regulated. Being mindful is the only way to keep them legal in your area and across the board. What's nice about the Nightsword is complete lack of spill light and corona, so no errant light to be bothersome.


----------



## BVH

Not only no significant spill but I can run it from 120VAC using my new Yahama 2KW inverter Genset which is nice a quiet and not going to break my back. Whole setup should not even be noticed by anyone near my range.

Went and checked those power readings and this is what I said:

"According to two ammeter sources, power draw is between 60 Amps (meter on the Lorain PS) and 64 Amps (Estech clamp-on meter on 400 Amp scale). The cooling fan consumes 1.4 Amps in that total. So let's be conservative and say the light minus fan is pulling 58.5 Amps @ 27.5 Volts so total power consumption of the lamp is around 1608 Watts which is right on the 1600 Watt money."

The caveats are that I was reading voltage at the junction box output, not the lamp and same with the Amps, not at the lamp. According to the manual, once the start and boost circuits are done, it's "system" Voltage minus the Diode loss which is present at the lamp. I now have a new 1,10, 100 Amp milliamp resolution clamp-on meter which will give me a more accurate reading. When I get the new lamp, I will make some temp connections and measure Voltage and current at the lamp to nail it down.


----------



## get-lit

I doubt the SX16 power supply could be 99.5% efficient, I'm thinking the lamp is operating at less than 1600W.


----------



## get-lit

The ducting baffles for the intake would amount to a net weight of 1 pound. That's about the lightest I can go. I hope that's not considered too much of a weight penalty for IP66. It will be at the rear of the light helping offset the weight of the lens and reflector.


----------



## BVH

I don't remember if you given an estimated weight of the light at its' latest design?


----------



## get-lit

Net weight for likely IP66 for dust/water/mist is 10.88 lbs.
Net weight for likely IP64 for dust/water is 10.15 lbs.

So about 7% more weight for the added ingress and mist protection.
I'm for this because there's a lot of mist here at times, and also I want it to be sea worthy.

EDIT: 9.88 lbs with IP42, basically just against light rain under a limited range of orientation.


----------



## BVH

In the overall scheme of things, the extra .75 pounds is not a big deal as I see it especially given the benefits of mist reduction/removal and better balance. I live on the left coast, 4000 feet from the waters' edge and on many if not most "clear" nights, if I light up a short arc, there's easily visible water droplets/mist present even though you can't naturally see it or feel it nor detect high humidity. In the end, it will weigh just about what a Costco HID, and probably a Thor 15mcp weighs - about 11 lbs.


----------



## get-lit

While saving up for funds for the slip roll machine, I'm working on programming the controller and came across another solution to simplify the control buttons. I had planned in using four force-sensing resistors embedded into the top of the handle, for durable, space saving, waterproof control buttons...





These get expensive and each need a voltage divider circuit and each need three wires. I came across a circular positional feedback sensor, like the round sensor on the Apple iPod. This would simplify the construction, reduce the number of components to just one control sensor and one voltage divider circuit. I would them program it to apply the top position as a focus button, bottom as defocus, left at strobe, right at dim, and various sliding movements for other functions, such as initiate the function to set the focus position, or a function to assign a new turn-on sequence, like a password reset function, etc.





I could also go with a single linear positional feedback sensor, and use linear sliding touch to move the focus, and then taps at each end for the other functions...




I'm leaning toward the linear sensor.

EDIT: Correction... iPod uses a capacitive sensor, whereas these are resistive sensors. A capacitive sensor only works when touched by something that carries electricity... fingers, not gloves. Instead, these resistive sensors rely on a slight pressure, so they can be used with gloves.


----------



## get-lit

Getting past the headache/learning curve with controller programming and it's getting fun now. The force-sensing resistors I have are working incredibly well and I'm looking forward to working with the linear sensor to replace them.

The display will have various output modes:

-Wattage (fun for startup)
-Lamp Hours
-System Hours
-Current Run Time
-Adjust Focus End-Stop Position
-Current Beam Spread
-Set Power On Sequence (Password)
-% Fan Power (helpful for knowing when approaching headwind pressure limit)
-Serial Number

Startup Screen to say: NIGHTSWORD - CPF EDITION

Different colors can be assigned to the various modes, for instance red for cooling airflow alert, in the event of fan failure, excessive headwind pressure, or air filter clog.






TTL input/ouput could be later added after assembly to fully remote control the light.
The controller chip is about the size of a quarter and can be removed for mailing to have any future updates loaded.

EDIT: The display is 2.6" x .63". I was originally planning to locate the display on the side of the light, but I'm trying to think of the best place where it can be visible when holding the light.

I'm thinking of using the linear sensor in the following manner during operation:

Slide = Adjust Beam Spread
Press @ Top = Strobe
Press @ Bottom = Low Power
Press @ Center = Mode Cycle

Once in "Adjust Focus End-Stop Position" mode, Slide action would then apply to setting the end stop position, with the focus motor moving very slow in relation to slide movement during adjustment.

Once in "Set Power On Sequence" mode, a determined number of presses and slides are recorded and must be re-entered to confirm as new password. I'm thinking six actions would be sufficient (an action being a press or a slide). Maybe allow the entry of any number of actions, from one to ten actions, so the user can determine their own level of safety, from no safety to fairly difficult.


----------



## BVH

This fabulous controls system is going to be icing on the cake! This will be the light of a lifetime!


----------



## get-lit

That's the whole idea! I'm going all out on the programming front because I program for a living and this is the first time I've done programming for a hands-on project rather than network communications and databases which remain entirely digital. Turning logic into actual physical results is very exciting for me. I've outlined the programming phases to be completed and can't wait to tackle each one day by day.


----------



## get-lit

After considering display locations, I think the best location is directly above the linear "thumb control" sensor. The display I had in mind would not fit in this location, so I'm going with a 1.8" 160x128 pixel high-contrast color TFT display. I could just do a touch screen instead of the linear sensor, but the touch screen would be too wide to rest the thumb to the side when not in use.

EDIT: Will be going with an OLED display for higher range of temps, contrast, true black, efficiency, etc. Much better viewing angle is important since it would be located at a 45-degree angle to the handle, toward the top of the optics housing.

Among the currently available OLEDs, the most suitable is white rather than color because it's available with it's own buffer and preloaded fonts, reducing the controller's RAM and processing utilization 100 fold. Also just two I2C communication pins are needed instead of five SPI pins.

A Youtube video of the display in someone else's project (poor video focus)...


Here's a color OLED in someone else's project, but currently not available with it's own buffer and fonts, and needs 5 SPI pins...


I might be able to possibly wing the color OLED, but it would consume most of the RAM and com pins, leaving no headroom for furture expandability for things like remote control etc.



EDIT: I've found a touchscreen OLED that is small enough to fit under the thumb, and narrow enough to rest the thumb to the side in portrait orientation (<1" Wide). It's not in use in other DIY projects so there would be more leg work involved. I have to see if it can be programmed for portrait orientation without too much headache, but this is the direction I'd like to go...


----------



## TEEJ

Very cool!


The screen going dark between the cold, normal and hot display is probably something I'd want some sort of transition between instead of a blank screen though.


The analog with moving bar and a digital readout format is probably better over all...such as the exhaust temp graphic.


----------



## get-lit

I agree with those suggestions. Keep in mind those were videos of displays in someone else's projects, shown to illustrate the displays, not necessarily representative of how the displays would function on this project.

I inquired with the company with the touchscreen but haven't heard back. The touchscreen function may take up too many com pins on the controller board, and I may have to resort to the separate linear sensor button which only uses one com pin.

Either way would be fine. The separate linear sensor button has the advantage of always seeing the screen while the thumb is over the button. The touchscreen has the advantage of the areas to be pressed being separately illuminated, whereas there's no way to visually identify the exact separate segments of the linear sensor in a precise manner. However, I could add three small SMD LEDs under the linear sensor, each centered under a button press function, in a tri-illuminated manner. Something would have to be done to make the buttons easy to identify at night, since it's the only time the light would be used anyhow.
*
Are there any preferences for the single touchscreen under the thumb, or the tri-illuminated linear sensor button under the thumb with separate screen above?*

EDIT: Here's drawings of the two control concepts:





Now I kind of prefer the separate control sensor. With the buttons separated from the display, various data can be displayed on the screen rather than the buttons.


----------



## BVH

I didn't want to appear pushy so didn't say anything before but since you're asking - Touchscreen, Touchscreen and Touchscreen.


----------



## get-lit

After having more time to consider both options, I definitely agree with the touchscreen. The difficult part will be assigning all of the com pins needed for a touchscreen, and more programming work with no readily available sample code to be able to utilize, but it's a much cleaner design, and a lot easier to assemble in the end.

One of the issues I'd have to work around when embedding the linear sensor within the housing is that it has to be centered at the parting line of the mold, so rather than inserting it during the mold process as I had originally planned, it would have to be placed on top of the handle after the two mold halves are joined, and then sealed over with a layer of clear coat. The three LEDs also be another step.

For a single touchscreen, the two mold halves would just have a cutout for the screen, and the screen would be easily inserted after both mold halves are joined.

I had set up an account with the manufacturer of the touchscreen to access the docs, but haven't received a confirmation as of yet. Confirmations might be manually processed, so I may have to wait until Monday to find out more. I'll also be working on the encoder/DC motor for focus, PWM fan, and air flow sensor integration with the controller board. For the focus motor, I'm waiting on the JST connectors to arrive, as I don't want to just cut the wires on the sample focus motor I have. For the fan, I don't have another fan laying around that uses the same PWM method as the fan I plan to use, and the fan I plan to use hasn't reached wholesalers yet. Also waiting for the air flow sensor to arrive. So looks to be a waiting game on all fronts for now. Time to clean up the mess I left after all the air flow testing.


----------



## Patriot

Wow, that touch screen set up would be amazing! I'm really enjoying these updates.:thumbsup:


----------



## get-lit

I need some more input regarding the touch screen because there's trade offs among the two choices I've narrowed it down to...

The easiest solution is a larger TFT/LCD screen because they are available with readily developed programming code mostly compatible with the programmer. This greatly reduces the amount of development.

Although it's the smallest of the TFT/LCD touchscreens, it may be a bit large for its purpose, but could display everything at once along with buttons for control, etc. It's 2.4" diagonal (1.5" wide x 1.87" long). The housing would be 2.18" wide x 2.55" long to fit the display board. This would be located at the top of the handle. I was initially concerned about having room to the side for the thumb to rest, but after sizing up the handle, I'm finding that the thumb rests over the index finger and not forward of the hand. I've also noticed that many products don't have any space forward of the grip for the thumb. The *Sony EX1* for example. So I'm not at all concerned about thumb space with a large screen, and I don't think the size is too large.

I am concerned that the screen would have to be tilted upward toward the front by 20° in order to fit between the hand and the reflector without moving the hand rearward further from the center of gravity. The thumb has a more natural operating position flat or downward. It puts a bit more strain on the thumb using it in an upward position. I see that the Sony EX1 does have about a 10° upward tilt on its thumb controls, and that was a $6K camera when it came out, so a 20° upward tilt may or may not be an issue here.

The other choice is the small OLED touch screen I mentioned. I've received the docs and this one is most likely do-able. It's 1.3" diagonal (.58" wide x 1.16" long). OLED has the benefits of efficiency and much greater contrast and viewing angle with pretty much absolute black level, so the unlit portion would blend right in with the housing, whereas TFT/LCD are back-lit, not that this is pertinent. There's a saying I came across.. once you go OLED you never go back-lit. It's a just large enough for its purpose, a no BS clean finish. The width of the housing to fit the display would not be any wider than the grip itself. The downside is there would likely be more development coding to be done, but I have some time while waiting for funds for the other areas.

Preferences/suggestions?

EDIT: Actually, the small OLED would allow the thumb to be angled 9° downward, which would be the ideal position, even better than flat.

EDIT: The large screen can be positioned in the landscape orientation so that it doesn't have to be angled upward, so angle is no longer a concern with the large screen. Came across an OLED version of the large screen that can be fairly easily integrated as well, but it's pricey.


----------



## BVH

My preference is the larger OLED screen with all data shown at once plus buttons in landscape orientation. To me, in the scheme of things - this being a one of a kind design and custom produced beauty, the extra cost of the display is not a significant issue.


----------



## get-lit

There's a lot that goes into the transition from display to controller, including pin reduction from 40 com pins down to just a few, dedicated video processor and RAM, and programming functions. 

Touch screens that include complete componentry and manageable documentation for that transition tend to be created as hobby projects, and as hobby projects they don't stay in production long.

The larger OLED display I mentioned is currently not available due to the independent hobbyist developer waiting for the next production run. This is not something I want to be dealing with in the long term.

Manufacturers of touch screens don't venture into development and implementation beyond just the displays, but I found one company that really has its act together... *4D Systems*!

They put it all together in an amazing package that does everything, with the least com pins and resources consumed by the controller, and with super easy documentation to help select the right solution, as well as clearly outlined programming functions. They're solutions also include a mini amplified speaker for audio feedback, and SD Card for utilizing images in the display for things like custom graphic button icons. Finding the best touch screen solution has been a heck of a journey and this is a huge find that I'm very excited about.

At this point, I just need to pick the best size display to go with. The one on the left is a 2.4" 320x240 display. The one on the right is a 3.2" 400x240 display in a wide screen of the same height. The larger takes up the same space between the reflector and the handle, and just includes more horizontal display area, basically offering more room for displaying more functions at once. Both will do the job perfectly well, and I'd like to hear which size others would prefer before I decide which to go with.

Top Views...






EDIT: Again, these would both have enough room to fit between the reflector and handle without having to tilt the displays upward, so they will be flat with the handle for excellent thumb comfort.


----------



## BVH

The *BIGGER* one. It looks more proportionately pleasing.


----------



## get-lit

Agreed. I could also add a function to run a focus and strobe sequence, where the focus would zoom in and out on its own for a little automated light show in the clouds.


----------



## get-lit

I'm completely blown away by how well structured 4D Systems is. They have an easy to use interactive development program that can create practically any interactive graphic button/meter/object imaginable, all in full color, that communicate with each other, and with the controller board, without even touching the code on the display board. Of course I'll still create all of the code on the controller end, but creating the display functionality is a cakewalk. The resettable user password will actually be a real password entered with a pop-up graphic keyboard rather than an action sequence, in addition to a whole slew of great things to improve the user interface. 4D Systems is really amazing. Their solutions will reduce my user interface hardware and programming development time by well over 90% while improving the end result. I know this is off topic about search lights, but I'm so happy to be able to include a fully-integrated graphic touch display to this project without it becoming a daunting task. It's also nice to know the touch screen is no longer just a possibility.


----------



## BVH

This is really exciting! An Ultra-Super performing, handheld NightSword that performs better than an SX-16 NightSun with a full-color and full feature touchscreen for operation and feedback and with looks that will "Kill". I'd have never dreamed of such a light only a short time ago. Well, maybe that's a bit of an over-statement because dreaming about something like this is pretty easy to do. Can you do a nice customized splash screen upon bootup? Maybe showing the owners name/logo/or?


----------



## get-lit

Had that in mind already lol... animated logo, owner name, and serial.

EDIT: Would make it so that it can be enabled/disabled for faster turn on.


----------



## get-lit

Before creating the user interface, I would like to get some feedback about the planned functional outline...

*[]* indicates a button
*||* indicates vertical graphic beam spread thumb slider in center of display
*** indicates log on required

*Primary Screen:*

*[Strobe]* **|| **[Lamp Power On/Off]* **[Low Power]* **||
**[Configuration]
**[Animate Beam]* **||
**Watts/RunTime/Fan%/AirFlow
*


*Configuration Screen:*
[Log On/Log Off]
[Record Animate Beam Pattern]***
[Adjust Focus End-Stop Position]***
[Set Power Off Timer]***
[Enable/Disable Splash Screen]***
[Set Password]***
System Total Hours
Lamp Hours
[Lamp Reset]***
Number Lamp Resets
Serial Number
Last Air Flow Fault: Date/Time
Last Fan Fault: Date/Time

*
Full Screen Warnings:*
Air Flow
Fan
Lamp Hour
Avoid Powering Off before Full Powerup


*Full Screen Fault Alerts: *(Lamp auto powered off to protect lamp & retro-reflector)
Air Flow
Fan


additional notes...
Touch screen to turn on display and activate user interface. 
Only one log on required per session. 
Session logs off with [Power Off] or [Log Off]. 
Full screen 0-9 numeric key pad password entry with large buttons for use with gloves. 
From 0 to 12 characters available for setting password, 0 characters will disable log on checks.


----------



## BVH

This is fun stuff Thanks for giving us a chance for input.


On first review - After touching the screen to activate it, could the [Configuration] button text read "LogOn/Configuration" and then once the light is running read "LogOff/Configuration"?

Will the button [Lamp Power On/Off] read only "Lamp Power On" or "Lamp Power Off" depending on the current state of the lamp or will it be literal as you show above?

When one of the 3 features on the left of the screen is invoked, will the user press (toggle) the same button to stop the feature?

Could [Lamp Power On/Off] and [Configuration] button positions be reversed? Thinking is to touch screen to activate, then start at upper right and work down.

Will the Low Power setting be adjustable by the user within programmed limits? (see below for related question)

Is the slider just for use in configuration mode or will it regulate power to the lamp when running within programmed limits? (related to above)

Under FULL SCREEN WARNINGS and FULL SCREEN FAULT ALERTS - what is the technical difference between "Air Flow" and "Fan"? Could one or both be "OVERTEMP?

What will be the FULL POWERUP minimum time? Is this requirement similar to my GE MARC300 EZS lamps minimum recommended run time of 3 minutes to avoid a build up of solids within the chamber?

Will "Watts" be input or lamp?


Not related to programming - what will a user have to do if he/she forgets the password?


----------



## get-lit

BVH said:


> On first review - After touching the screen to activate it, could the [Configuration] button text read "LogOn/Configuration" and then once the light is running read "LogOff/Configuration"?



First off, I just changed "Configuration" to "Settings". I originally wanted to leave that page accessible without logging in, in case I wanted to add another button in settings for a function in case of forgotten passwords, but that can be displayed if the password is entered incorrectly. See the *note about this below.



BVH said:


> Will the button [Lamp Power On/Off] read only "Lamp Power On" or "Lamp Power Off" depending on the current state of the lamp or will it be literal as you show above?



Display only [Lamp Power On] or [Lamp Power Off] depending on the current state of the lamp. However I'm thinking I prefer [Ignite Lamp] and [Lamp Off].



BVH said:


> When one of the 3 features on the left of the screen is invoked, will the user press (toggle) the same button to stop the feature?



Quick press for momentary, hold to enable until pressed again.



BVH said:


> Could [Lamp Power On/Off] and [Configuration] button positions be reversed? Thinking is to touch screen to activate, then start at upper right and work down.



More often than not, [Lamp Power On] would be pressed first when reaching to use the light. Password is prompted if the password is set to more than 0 characters, otherwise the lamp is lit immdiately upon [Lamp Power On] without login required.



BVH said:


> Will the Low Power setting be adjustable by the user within programmed limits? (see below for related question)



Low power is a static 70% of full power.



BVH said:


> Is the slider just for use in configuration mode or will it regulate power to the lamp when running within programmed limits? (related to above)



The beam spread slider is only displayed on the "Primary Screen". [Settings] is its entirely own full screen.



BVH said:


> Under FULL SCREEN WARNINGS and FULL SCREEN FAULT ALERTS - what is the technical difference between "Air Flow" and "Fan"? Could one or both be "OVERTEMP?



FAN FAULT ALERT is in case of fan faults, if the fan simply stops working for any reason.

AIR FLOW FAULT ALERT is in case the air flow is overly restricted even if the fan is working fine, in case of too much head wind pressure, or clogged air filter.



BVH said:


> What will be the FULL POWERUP minimum time? Is this requirement similar to my GE MARC300 EZS lamps minimum recommended run time of 3 minutes to avoid a build up of solids within the chamber?



Simply until the lamp reaches full power. 90 seconds without retro-reflector, but less with retro-reflector. I've recorded down 60 seconds with retro-reflector. If the user operates the light under ten minutes a number of times, I could also add an additional prompt to recommend a >20 minute run to condition the electrodes. See below.



BVH said:


> Will "Watts" be input or lamp?



I prefer to display lamp and ballast power. Upon ignition, I could make this text change from red, to yellow, to green, once full power is reached, so the user can know when it's best for the lamp to turn it off.



BVH said:


> Not related to programming - what will a user have to do if he/she forgets the password?



I decided to make a separate post about this after this post.

I've also added two additional functions. Firstly the user can set the display brightness. Secondly, the user can set the screen saver brightness and screen saver delay.

*Updated Functional Outline...*
*[]* indicates a button
*||* indicates vertical graphic beam spread thumb slider in center of display
*** A touch anywhere on the screen prompts for login if not already logged in. Even the beam spread. This way, the user could place the lamp "fully in" to the flood position so that someone else couldn't take out the lamp. Let me know if this is preferred.

*Primary Screen:*

*[Strobe] **|| **[Ignite Lamp]/[Lamp Off] **[Low Power] **||
**[Settings] **[Animate Beam] **||
**Watts/RunTime/Fan%/AirFlow
*


*Configuration Screen:**
[Log Off]
[Record Animate Beam Pattern]
[Adjust Focus End-Stop Position]
[Enable Screen Color Auto Switch]/[Disable Screen Color Auto Switch]
[Set Lamp On Screen Contrast]
[Set Lamp Off Screen Contrast]
[Set Screen Saver Contrast]
[Set Screen Saver Timer]
[Set Power Off Timer]
[Enable Splash Screen]/[Disable Splash Screen]
[Set Password]
[Time Limit To Restore Master Password]
System Total Hours
Lamp Hours
[Lamp Reset]
Number Lamp Resets
[Suppress Lamp Usage Warnings]/[Enable Lamp Usage Warnings]
Serial Number
Last Air Flow Fault: Date/Time
Last Fan Fault: Date/Time

*
Full Screen Warnings:*
Air Flow
Fan
Lamp Hour
Avoid Powering Off before Full Powerup (this can be suppressed)
>20 Minute Run Recommended to Condition the Electrodes (displayed if a number of <10 minute runs is recorded. This is not absolutely necessary, just recommended to get the full lamp life. This can be suppressed.)


*Full Screen Fault Alerts: *(Lamp auto powered off to protect lamp & retro-reflector)
Air Flow
Fan


additional notes...
Touch screen to turn on display and activate user interface. 
Only one log on required per session. 
Session logs off with [Lamp Off] or [Log Off].
System powers down if no touches for 5 minutes with lamp off.
Full screen 0-9 numeric key pad password entry with large buttons for use with gloves. 
From 0 to 12 characters available for setting password, 0 characters will disable log on checks.

EDIT: Added function [Time Limit To Restore Master Password] to allow the user to determine how long the system will utilize their custom password before reverting back to the master password. This would allow the user to use their own simple password, or no protection at all, and eventually become maximally protected from use if forgotten or stolen.


----------



## get-lit

I've thought about various password recovery solutions, but I think the simplest is for each light to have its own master unlock password given on paper to be stored safely. If that too is lost, I could make the password function display the serial number with instructions to contact me and I would then verify the contact person as the owner and provide them the master unlock password. Owners who sell the light used should inform me so that I could update owner registration, and request the new owner's acknowledgement of safe usage. I want to take every effort to make the light useless if stolen, for safety reasons, and to catch a thief if they attempt to retrieve the master unlock password. This would be felony theft territory.


----------



## TEEJ

Given you being mortal, etc, you might want to consider a back-up plan in case they try to contact you to retrieve the master code, etc...and you're away on vacation, or, in a hospital with mad cow disease, or, a cemetery because the hospital was not that good at treating mad cow disease, etc.

You mentioned a cd card reader option IIRC, that would be a cool way to allow updates and even further personalization (icons, settings, etc)

If stolen (The fear of which drove some of your concerns...) can the light be "hot wired" to work w/o knowing codes, etc? 

Was the initial code just to prevent some bozo from turning your light on and exploding his/bystander's retinas? Did it evolve to cover theft issues?

Typically, for commercial use, where there may be several users...a password for equipment that require one ends up taped to the device or its box, etc. A hobbyist, etc of course would potentially just store it somewhere safe as planned....but if its not easy to remember, they'd need to bring it with them when planning to use the light, etc. 

An "easy code" setting to allow the owner to make it (Temporarily) hard for someone else to accidentally turn it on w/o their permission/supervision, but more convenient/easier to power up, and another (Default) setting for longer term storage, transport, etc, where theft concerns might be more relevant...might reduce the "PITA Factor" if entering a code to use it every time its turned on is considered too burdensome. 

If going for full on protection, a transmitter GPS chip that sends out a distress signal if stolen, which could be tracked, would help in recovery. If it had that, the option to activate it so if lost in use, say search and rescue, etc...would mean you could find where it fell off the truck or out of the helicopter, accidentally put into the wrong truck or chopper, etc.


----------



## get-lit

I may have over-stated my intention when I said "take every effort to make the light useless if stolen". There are practical compromises. To really make it inoperable when stolen, the controller board would have to be physically encapsulated with the ballast to prevent direct wiring of the ballast between the control board. Encapsulating them together could be done, but that would prevent mailing me the controller for updates. The whole light would have to be mailed instead. Even then, it would be possible for a savvy programmer to program the controller to send a signal to each controller pin until it finds which turns on the ballast. Still wouldn't have the rest of the controls such as beam spread, and fan control but those could be physically rewired to function at least in a crude manner. To fully prevent usage once stolen, even from the savvy programmer, I would have to also encapsulate access to the programming pins to the controller board so that it can no longer be updated at all, not even if we wanted to. It comes down to where we want to be in the compromise for safety and theft deterrence.

My bicycle has a GPS with a cell phone SIM card in the frame that I can call and locate with google maps if stolen. Can also listen in very well over my phone on the people that stole it without them having a clue. It cost me under $120 to set it up and it gives me piece of mind, with less concern about theft while I enjoy using it. Don't really want to take it that far with the light. The size of the module is insignificant on a bike, but on the light it would be like having to fit another ignitor on board.

I'm not too worried about mad cow disease, I'm fairly certain I have a super-hybrid form of it driving me through this project. My back-up plan in case my disease consumes the rest my mind would be to have a USB drive sent to someone that would be willing to take on the responsibility.

The card reader doesn't have provisions for storing code, just audio/visual content. Could be used to log activity but I don't see a need for that either.

Yes the initial purpose of the password was to prevent others from hurting themselves or other people and objects, particularly to protect children and curious sneaky teenagers in the family. That's 99% of the purpose. I saw self-obsoletion in theft just as an added benefit.

Providing the ability for the user to determine how many characters they want for a password, or none at all, gives the flexibility to assign the degree of "protection" versus "ease of use" as they see fit at the time. So if they want to put it in long term storage as you say, they could assign a 12 character password, and then at another time of occasional use, assign a three character password for more convenience, and for a time when they know they're going to be using it a lot over say a weekend, they could assign no characters to disable protection completely. Just hit the ignite button and the lamp is struck. 

I could also add in a user-adjustable time limit for no protection, so that if it does get stolen while protection is disabled, it would re-enable itself after that set period of time. I think I'm going to go ahead and include this in the plan.

EDIT: I've updated the outlined plan to include this.

These protections are not just for knowing its no good to a thief, but I feel they are very much necessary to prevent something like this from getting into the hands of thieves. Someone who spend thousands on something they're really into have a propensity to be responsible with it, but I wouldn't want the likes of thieves running around with this. It wouldn't be good for the hobby. If we don't take steps to keep it safe ourselves, the law will eventually step in and say it can't be trusted with any of us.


----------



## BVH

I like all the features of the latest iteration! Do you have any expertise in the mold-making arena? I have always thought that making the Carbon Fiber case would be the most complicated part of the design and manufacturing process - probably because I have zero experience in this area. It seems daunting to me.


----------



## get-lit

I've studied the mold making process and requirements thoroughly over the past few years and it's actually the most exciting process for me to begin. There's more than enough video tutorials out there to take the mystery out of it all. *Fibre Glast* has several concise multi-part video series to get a good foundation. Once the mold is made, and set-up is ready, it's super fun and easy to make parts. I can't wait. What's holding me back at this point is funds for the slip roll machine needed to make the prototype intake ducting to test with to ensure the housing will be the size needed before having the molds made.

Most tutorials begin with making a plug which is the male shape of the part, from which the two female mold halves are formed around. The molds are then used to make the part halves which are then joined together for each final part. Since the mold is made from the same strength material as the parts, the molds last for only so many parts. A step up is having the molds CNC machined out of aluminum blocks. This would skip the plug-making process and result in slightly more accurate parts being from a 1st generation form, with a mold that will last indefinitely. I will have the molds CNC machined by a local that just wants to put his machine to some fun work.

Once again I'm very thankful that funds have delayed the process, otherwise the molds would have been made already, with no provision for a touch display. If I had the all the money needed to complete everything from the get go, the end result would not have been nearly as refined because the time kept giving me new areas to explore.


----------



## get-lit

Here's a few videos to show just how easy it is to set up the 4D Systems touch display controls using their visual construction program, Visi-Genie, without any direct programming. (of course there's still extensive programming to be done on the controller board to integrate with the touch display and all connected devices.
*4D Systems Visi-Genie Video
4D Systems Visi-Genie Video*

I'm finding in the documentation that the company did make OLED touch displays which they don't advertise, but not in the wide-screen format which we decided we prefer. And the other downside is that they are more than double the price, $226 vs $80 each, but the $226 price was from 2009. I'm inquiring with the company about any OLED touch displays that might be available of upcoming soon. The cost would have come down a lot from 2009. The contrast is amazing...
*OLED Touch*

Still, the TFT contrast in the first two videos is nice.


----------



## get-lit

I've created the layout of the primary screen of the display...







With the light.. (top view)


----------



## The_Driver

Thats looks very good, but do really think that blue is a good color at night? Wouldn't a red/orange color scheme make more sense, because it doesn't blind so much when the eyes are (somewhat) night adapted? How bright will the display be?

Also concerning the touch screen: have conidered the repairability of the light in thise case? What will happen in 10 years when these modules will probably not be in production any more?


----------



## BVH

The display layout looks fantastic!! Could there be multiple color schemes available from which to choose? I like the blue myself and would probably choose it if multiple schemes were available despite blue being one of the colors that the human eye has the most difficulty focusing on. It's very difficult to contain my excitement about having one of these gems!


----------



## get-lit

The models are removable from the housing. This particular display line is the most likely to be around longer than any other because it's an actual company, not a hobby project. I trust this company to remain successful because they by far have the best solutions. It's carried by Mouser, who tends to carry long term products intended for manufacturers.

There are three things going for this approach in the event the line is dropped. First is the mold will be made with a large enough display area to accommodate a range of sizes that would be large enough to use and small enough to fit. Second is that there are more sizes available as time passes. The third is that display technology improves as time passes. A particular benefit is less space needed around the display, making it easier to fit displays within the working space.

To adapt to a new display line, the light would have to be sent to me, or whomever takes over responsibilities in the event of mad cow, to modify the display mounting provision and to update the control board firmware.

Even in the worst case scenario, a new mold could be made. Other than the mold itself, the cost of the housing parts is relatively small to the cost of the ballast, ignitor, and the rest of the components, so a housing update would be practical.

Actually, a new mold wouldn't have to be made. In the future I could make a cutout in the mold, to insert dedicated interchangeable display molds. There's a name for this practice, which eludes me at the moment.

Eventually, there would be no cutout for the display, as displays will eventually be just a thin surface-mounted film.

I agree with the night color setting. I'll also make a high contrast color setting of red outline on black and limited use of other colors. I can make this a user setting. I'll work on this so we can review it next to see if it can be improved before I go with it.


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> I agree with the night color setting. I'll also make a high contrast color setting of red outline on black and limited use of other colors. I can make this a user setting. I'll work on this so we can review it next to see if it can be improved before I go with it.



I was thinking about automatic brightness adjustment, when the light is on it uses a high brightness setting, when the light is turned off the brightness will automatically reduced over a period of some minutes.


----------



## get-lit

Excellent idea. I've simply added a new setting to the functional outline in the post above... [Set Lamp On Screen Contrast] and [Set Lamp Off Screen Contrast]

This way it doesn't have to dim with lamp off if the user doesn't want it to.

Here's a proposed display color scheme to preserve eye sensitivity in low light...








*EDIT: I've added a new setting to enabling red to preserve low light sensitivity when the lamp is off and auto switch to blue when the lamp is on.*
Added to functional outline -> [Enable Screen Color Auto Switch]/[Disable Screen Color Auto Switch]

This way the user can designate a combination of both auto-switching brightnesses and color.


----------



## Ceya!

Will there be a lock out to prevent accidental changes?

Get Lit, It good to see this moving forward.

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## get-lit

There's not really anything to mess up, it's all simple enable/disable settings, and the system is password protected.

Auto-switching color function...






With auto dimming...





EDIT: I removed the button shading for more contrast...


----------



## Ceya!

I was talking about the above. This way you don't accidentally press the wrong button once you have your setting(s).

If I choose a setting and want to stay there and not worrying if I touch the pad by mistake something will change.

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## get-lit

You would have to inadvertently press the settings button first, then press another entry in the settings screen, and then change the setting on that particular setting screen. I could make the setting button a double tap, or a press and hold for a few seconds...

I will move the settings button to the top where it's naturally further from the thumb.


----------



## Ceya!

Double tap or hold would work better than moving it.

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## get-lit

I played around with LCD displays in the dark and realized I much prefer warmer colors, even if there is a bright light on.

After looking at various LCD displays, I also realized I much prefer the most minimalist displays, with the least lines and gradients, with illuminating just what you need to see.

Finally, the buttons on the primary display should be narrowed, to be further from the center vertical beam spread slider, so that when using the slider, those buttons are less likely to be incidentally touched.

And, also considering Ceya's concern about accidental button presses, I've included *horizontal sliders* for the [SETTINGS] button and [IGNITE] button. Instead of pressing the buttons, they are slid horizontally from the inside to the outside. Here's what I arrived at with these four concerns in mind...






The off-green time display is the run-time of the current power cycle. Underneath it is a *horizontal slider for adjusting the display brightness* so that it can be quickly adjusted without entering the settings screen.


With the housing (top view)...






*Thanks 'Driver' for the Red/Orange suggestion, thanks HKJ for the auto brightness suggestion, and thanks Ceya! for the suggestion to address inadvertent button presses!!!
*All of these suggestions helped make this much better in one swoop.

I'm leaning away from making a separate color selection. The display module's development suite is not made to accommodate that sort of function, and I would have to double the programming and communication resources from the display module to the controller board, and I prefer to keep the resources for the user interface to a minimal so that there's enough remaining for any possible future upgrades in other areas. I'd also prefer to develope a single display that would become recognizable as the Nightsword user interface.


----------



## ez78

Very cool things happening here!  I was thinking if it would be worth considering having a real button or switch just for the ignition? Just an idea. I think I would kind of prefer something mechanical and more robust for unleashing such power.


----------



## get-lit

If you're wanting a physical rather than electronic switch for the sake of knowing it's impossible to turn on without being physically activated, it would have to be a high-voltage / high-current switch. A physical but still low-powered switch to signal the ballast to turn on still would rely on an electronic switch within the ballast.

The reason I've shied away from that is because a physical high-voltage / high-current switches are large and somewhat heavy, and expensive. I also wanted to preserve ambidexterity, and the switch would have to be located on either one side or the other of the housing, not that it's a huge deal. I also wanted to be able to turn on the light with one hand.

Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, electronic switches are not full proof, and I've seen all sorts of electronics devices turn on on their own all at once is an intense lightning storm. I think a physical switch is required for military applications as well. It would be helpful to have some more input regarding these trade-offs.


----------



## BVH

The colors look nice. Not excited about the sliders to ignite. Not bad for the "settings" activation. I first think of my phones' touchscreen. It gets dirty or there is moisture present and sometimes the first swipe doesn't work so it takes two swipes, and occasionally 3. How about a 1 to 1.5 second push and hold?


----------



## ez78

Thanks for the reply get-lit. I was just mainly wanting the button for the feeling I quess. Something moving and clicking maybe. I am old fashioned that way.  If given the choice between double tap or slide to ignite, I think I would take double tap or maybe 1.5 second hold like BVH mentiod. A well defined action that is easy to repeat anyways.


----------



## get-lit

Ok I'll revert to the buttons and use the hold method.

BVH, what do you think about a physical switch for ignition?

Forgot to mention it also has to be waterproof.

Here's how I envision it to work with a physical switch while still retaining password protected turn on... The physical switch turns on the ballast, and sends a signal to the controller. The controller then automatically prompts for password if it's more than 0 characters. The controller then sends the signal to the ballast instructing it to ignite the lamp. This would be done automatically if no password is set by the user, so the user can still have a one-step turn on if desired.

What I liked about the current setup is its simplicity, but I agree that there's much benefit to a physical switch. There's just the issue of where to put it, and the extra wiring of the switch and some sort of component that can convert the universal AC/DC power source into a low voltage signal to the control board so the control board knows when the power to the ballast is switched on and then perform the password prompt. I'm hoping this doesn't mean another large DC converter is needed just for this. Hopefully HKJ can chime in.

The ballast can also be configured to simply ignite the lamp when the power is switch on, but then there would be no provision for password protection.


----------



## BVH

I prefer the simplicity in operation and good looks of the touchscreen (only) controlled ignition, no physical button.


----------



## get-lit

Ok looks to be a tie so far. I'm still undecided and torn between the benefits of both.

There is an additional benefit to the toggle switch I hadn't mentioned. The ballast consumes 2 to 3 watts in standby, so it will drain a battery pack when left plugged in. A large 500Wh battery pack would drain in about a week.

I just realized a method with the toggle switch... Use a waterproof low-voltage toggle switch (which are easy to find) fed 12VDC from the universal DC converter already in the system, which switches a relay to power the ballast while at the same time signalling the control board. Since a relay is still a physical switch, it wouldn't be subject to EMI issues that electronic switching mechanisms have.


----------



## BVH

Still not a fan of cluttering up the clean, smooth looks of the screen and just seems to be an additional step in lighting up the light. It's simple enough to just unplug the light from the battery.


----------



## get-lit

I understand. Keep in mind, there would be no additional steps. If the switch is turned on, one of the two scenarios would happen:

1. The lamp would ignite immediately if there is no password set.

2. If there is a password set, the touch screen will prompt, and immediately ignite the lamp when the password is entered. There would be no lamp ignite button on the display.


----------



## ez78

I am slowly starting to like the touchscreen operation without additional toggles when I think about it. It might be the smartest way to go with no extra design hassle. Anyways, you guys should decide it without listening to me too much. I don't have the same level of knowledge of the design. Just throwing ideas.


----------



## get-lit

I'm certain that a physical switch would be required for a MIL-SPEC light, which I will make at some point. What I'd like to assess is whether or not we want the CPF version to be geared for MIL-SPEC or for clean streamlined design and ease of use. Can we get a consensus on this either way?


----------



## BVH

Non-Mil-Spec, clean lines, high techno-look for me.


----------



## HKJ

With an external battery pack I would not worry that much about an master switch, if something goes wrong you can always disconnect the battery pack.

What I am missing in your description is some sort of off mode, where the power consumption is very low and the display is off.
I do not know the hardware you are using, but would it be possible to turn the display off and put the processor into sleep for a very low power consumption, then each other second wake up and check the touch, if a hand is detected, then turn the display on. The buttons on the display will not work before you have removed the hand from the display.
This way you have to place a hand on the display for a few seconds, when you take the light, to activate the user interface.


----------



## Parker VH

BVH said:


> Non-Mil-Spec, clean lines, high techno-look for me.



+1


----------



## get-lit

Makes it very easy when everyone agrees like this.

There's not much need for an off button for the display. There will be two separate user-configurable delays for the display to shut off on its own... one delay for when the light is on, and one for the delay when the light is off. When the delay is tripped while the light is off, the display's controller board will also go into a deep sleep mode, able to just conduct touch signals to the main controller board. The main controller board will have to remain on, and it consumes .25W. Like I mentioned, the ballast also consumes 2 to 3 watts. I was told that and haven't checked it myself. I would need to make a solder connection to put it into sleep mode and that would made it more difficult for the tests I was doing. I'm optimistic that 2 to 3 watts was a rough guess, and the actual consumption could be much less.

I also agree with going with the sleek design. A mil-spec version probably wouldn't even have a display, but rather the uber expensive physical controls from Otto.


----------



## get-lit

I've removed the sliders for the settings and ignite buttons. Also made the fonts as bold as possible while still fitting, and added a border around the thumb slider...







With housing (top view)...





EDIT: I updated the colors of the meters to give them more color contrast to distinguish them more, while still keeping with warm colors.


----------



## Patriot

BVH said:


> I prefer the simplicity in operation and good looks of the touchscreen (only) controlled ignition, no physical button.



I'm just barely keeping up with all the updates here but I think it would be really nice without physical button as well.


P.S. I really like that border around the slider switch too. Nice touch Get-lit :thumbsup:


----------



## get-lit

Thanks Patriot.

Here's the settings menu, it navigates through multiple pages to accommodate all of the settings while keeping the buttons large enough to use with gloves. I chose to go with the menu navigation buttons centered on the bottom for ambidexterity. All pages other than the home page will have the same bottom navigation, with NEXT and PREV displayed where appropriate...











EDIT: I've attempted to place the more frequently used functions toward the beginning of the list.

Again, sticking with warm colors, blue will be reserved for alerts.


----------



## BVH

Looking really great!


----------



## get-lit

I've updated the colors... the various objects are hopping around the compliments of blue to give more color contrast while sticking with warm colors, and will nicely compliment the blueish tint to the beam.

EDIT: Images updated.. Some minor tweaks to accommodate the display program... The text on the display that the controller board needs to update isn't anti-aliased and looks bad when italicized without anti-aliasing, so the time will not be italics.

Update-able text also needs more space around it than static text, and so now the watts won't fit under the 100%. I don't want to shorten the gauges to make more room because I want to keep them at 100 pixels high so that they move in unison with the percentages.

The point is, I've had to make the word "POWER" a button that can be clicked to interchange between displaying the power as a percentage and as a wattage.


----------



## get-lit

Ok so here we go again... I wanted to keep the operational buttons (STROBE, ANIMATE, LOW) grouped away from the SETTING button, so I located the settings button on the other side. I made more room by removing the words SPOT and FLOOD since that's not really needed. I wanted to keep the main screen clear for the operational functions, so that you're not inadvertently touching other crap. So I removed the brightness slider. That freed up just enough room to add the settings button to the right.

I renamed SETTINGS to SETUP because it's shorter and can be a larger font for legibility. Same with ANIMATE, now PLAY. Same with STROBE, now FLASH. It's technically more of a flash frequency anyhow. The additional room for FLASH, PLAY, LOW allows them to be larger and more individually isolated. It's much easier to vertically navigate three buttons with the thumb than four buttons, especially if you want to do it without looking. Overall less cluttered and easier to use.


----------



## London Lad

I think the display / controls look great now. 

I do have to say that I would prefer them to have a physical switch too but I'm just old fashioned. 
I would probably buy a Mil-spec version with no display if it were available. Displays and touch controls are just more to fail or get damaged IMHO but I'm obviously in the minority


----------



## get-lit

I would have felt the same but one of my favorite little devices is my Garmin Edge 800 GPS for cycling. It uses a resistive touch screen and it's rock solid.

*Grr.. I ran into another issue.* I printed the display on paper and taped it above the handle. Found out the thumb needs to be able to extend to the top of the screen, and the thumb gets less comfortable sliding past 2/3 the way down the screen. The thumb prefers a shorter sliding distance than I had thought. At least my thumb anyways. So I re-arranged the display in order to have the thumb slider at the top and to shorten the slider height. I used an inverted triangle in the space below to help signify the slider as a flood adjustment. Inside the triangle is the degrees of beam spread. I will have to create a setting for entering whether or not the lamp is a super short arc version or not for this reading. It makes about a 1/2-degree difference, not very significant in flood, but more-so in spot. The run-time is moved to the bottom.












EDIT: I notice the triangle seems to have a mirror effect with the warning symbols on the opposite end of the handle.


----------



## BVH

Looking good! Can you refresh us on the Super Short Arc lamp versus a non-Super version. Will it be an option and if so, what will the differences in Lumens, arc gap, minimum beam degrees, lamp life and other differences be?

Don't take this negatively. I'm just curious in your thinking of the inverted triangle. I like the fact that you slide forward for the narrowest beam but with my brains' initial interpretation of the triangle graphic, I would tend to think that I would slide to the back - towards the triangles' narrowest point, to get the narrowest beam.

What is the anticipated "flash" rate and will it have a negative effect on lamp life?


----------



## Patriot

BVH said:


> Don't take this negatively. I'm just curious in your thinking of the inverted triangle. I like the fact that you slide forward for the narrowest beam but with my brains' initial interpretation of the triangle graphic, I would tend to think that I would slide to the back - towards the triangles' narrowest point, to get the narrowest beam.




I wonder if it would make sense or even seem intuitive if the triangle were inverted. Kind of hard to picture, so I'm not sure. I do like seeing the beam angle in the triangle!


----------



## get-lit

Tough crowd, love it! Will have to get back to you on the super short arc. I've been advised flash mode does not have negative affect on the lamp to be a big concern, but it may have some affect on lamp life if used all of the time. I also do not know the frequency as of yet.

Here you go... the height and angle of the triangle animates with the slide action.
The animated triangle is not to scale with the actual beam angle.
The angles are emphasized to help illustrate the widening of the beam in flood.

*Full Spot...*





*Mid Flood...*





*Full Flood...*







*
Mid Flood w/Housing (Top View)...*







EDIT: By the way, it's important to note that the beam spread touch slider does not have to be used just as a slide action. It can also simply be *touched at any point within the slider* and the beam will quickly go there.

Also, to include the ability to maintain time when the light is unplugged, as well as include known date and time functions, I would have to use a Real Time Clock add-on board with a lithium watch battery. I don't think this is necessary, so I'm probably going to forgo the recording "Last Air Flow Fault: Date/Time" and "Last Fan Fault: Date/Time" and as well as setting [Time Limit To Restore Master Password].


----------



## BVH

Now THAT is really getting fancy!! I love the changing angle of the bar. But....always gotta be a but...my brain is telling me that if i move the slider forward, the beam angle will get wider even though i know differently. What if you inverted the bar so that the front of the bar would get narrower as the slider is moved forward. I guess that would require the rearward part of the bar to get narrower as the slider is moved forward. Im actually having a hard time seeing the animation in my mind. Maybe this....in full flood the bar is a short and blunt triangle. As the slider moves forward, the triangle gets longer and has a sharper angle until it becomes a narrow straight bar at max focus.

It's been an hour now and what you show above is making more sense to my brain now. 

For my use, i would not need any real-time/date data


----------



## get-lit

Look at the animation below. *Think of the yellow being the actual beam in the sky.* The top position on the slider is full on spot. The bottom position is full flood. As the thumb slides from top to bottom, the beam widens and throws less far. It's like your pushing the beam down, covering less distance, but with a wider field of view. As the thumb slides back up, the beam narrows and throws further. It's like your extending the beam up covering more distance, but with a smaller field of view...








EDIT: Here's with the changing spot diameter highlighted in white, dimming as it widens...


----------



## get-lit

Here's the inverted you mentioned...






This is as if the beam is pointed downward. I don't like how the beam in this diagram is facing opposite the direction the light.

Ideally this beam diagram would be above the slider, so that it could be pointing in the direction of the light. Because of this limitation, I have a tendency to prefer the first two animations. But I'm completely open to other opinions. Let me know what you think..


----------



## BVH

Seeing my description in animation helps make it clear that your original is more intuitive. I kind of thought that after thinking about it for a while.


----------



## get-lit

I think this one's the most intuitive...
(three side-by-side images shown here, so it won't line up on a narrow browser)













EDIT: To keep a shut down from affecting the lamp during startup, the [IGNITE] button will say [RUN UP]. Once run up is complete, the button will say [OFF]. If the [RUN UP] button is pressed during the run up process, it would warn about the affect of premature shutoff on the lamp and will provide three options: 1. auto shutoff when run up is complete, 2. shut off anyway, 3. cancel.


----------



## BVH

Yes, I like this one the best. I see only one image though - the new one, not 3 side-by-side.

Great routine on the Ignite button!


----------



## get-lit

You're seeing it right then.

I'm trying to finalize the look of this beam spread indicator because it's a lot of work to set up interactively in the display and only want to set it up once, so I appreciate quick the feedback.

To reduce the amount of light coming from the screen for night vision sensitivity, I've now used lines for the beam spread indicator rather than solid color...


----------



## BVH

I like the solid color better. I think the purpose of that part of the graphic is lost. Do you think night vision is an issue? What about dimming down the beam solid color?


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> To reduce the amount of light coming from the screen for night vision sensitivity, I've now used lines for the beam spread indicator rather than solid color..



Is night vision an issue with the light on?
I would only expect it to be an issue some time after the light is turned off.


----------



## get-lit

These screens can have some degree of affect when they're lit up close to the face. Dim solid color will do.

I've played around with solid dim warm colors and they get bland looking when dimmed, so I'm giving a dim teal-blue a shot. It's not a deep blue and since it's dimmed it shouldn't take such a big hit on low light sensitivity...


----------



## BVH

Did you try 432 nm green - the typical Laser pointer green. The blue is ok looking.

Be sure to tell us when you've had enough input!


----------



## Patriot

I think the dark teal is good. The more I look at it, the orange is just too much, especially on flood. 

Great animation btw!:thumbsup:


----------



## Patriot

I just ran into this light and the touch screen slider for the output control reminded me of the Nightsword in a way. The gif. sort of puts an image to the slider method, I guess.


----------



## get-lit

Notice how the the thumb in that pic has to scrunch close into the hand when sliding the control inward? I find that uncomfortable. That's what I was explaining when I decided to locate the slider further forward as it is now. I'm going to work on other areas and the best way to create the slider illustration will work its way out.


----------



## get-lit

Got bored with the display so I played around a bit. Probably over the top but it was fun to try something different...


----------



## BVH

Thats beautiful! I'll take it now, don't bother to gift wrap it!


----------



## get-lit

Wasn't sure what anyone would think, I was half awake making it. If you like something more graphical like this, there couldn't be an animated beam angle illustration because the line shading is contained within the multiple other objects. The buttons would still be interactive with four stages... Ready, Touch, Release, and Active. Of course the beam angle would still be displayed. It's a bit cleaner with some text removed. The percentage numbers were redundant since the meters are displayed so I removed them for this rendition. I think removing the labels for the Power/Flow/Fan meters makes it a bit more sophisticated. Removing these things provides more space for the meters to be nice and large. Of course thoughts, criticisms and suggestions are welcome.


----------



## BVH

I'd love to have that exact display on my light!


----------



## get-lit

Here's the the full 400x240p image...


----------



## BVH

How about the timer text being laser pointer green? I'd love a bit of that pretty green in the mix.


----------



## get-lit

OK like that? (Images updated)

Edit.. also clean up the squared corners of the text backgrounds.


----------



## BVH

Yep, that's it! Looks Wonderful!!


----------



## The_Driver

Maybe an arrow(s) on the slider would make the light easier and more intuitive to use...?


----------



## get-lit

Unfortunately the slider only supports solid colors.

I sorted LOW/PLAY/FLASH by character length to fit the "V" shape of the display.

EDIT: I was toying around when I started this last night and didn't expected it to go anywhere. I just removed the glow from under the buttons to make them more distinct and easier to read. Also brightened up the blue glow.

EDIT: Enlarged the meters to fill the entire available space. Increased the range blue gradients in the line glow.

(images updated)


----------



## get-lit

I don't know why I hadn't thought about it before but I'd like to have the display have the same colors as the housing decals.

This would be the splash screen. No need to have a setting to disable the splash screen because it has everything needed to operate the light without leaving the screen.
The focus slider is to the right in case the lamp is to be moved without the lamp on.







Expanded Light Controls Upon Ignition...






On the housing...


----------



## BVH

I like the cleaned up blue lines/less glow. Much better sharper. New colors are great and I like that it is the same as the graphics on the light as you say. If a password is required will a screen requesting it appear after the ignite button is pressed? Gopd thought on having the focusing feature with the lamp off.

Not sure if I like the yellow button shadows. I think they take away a bit of the contrast and are somewhat distracting. As I mentioned quite a while ago, I love the dark blue "cloud that starts at the yellow "searchlights" under NS and fades to black. That is so cool looking!

I know I seem to keep saying I like the "current iteration best" but they just keep getting better, really!

I don't remember when the blue on the back of the handle went away?


----------



## get-lit

I agree on the shadows (reflections). Thought I would try it. Gone now. pics updated.

Yes, all clicks on the splash screen will prompt for password.


----------



## BVH

That dark blue to black fade is much more visible in the button areas now. I have absolutely loved that specific color fade as far back as I can remember somewhere in the late 80's early 90's.

Could I hire you to make me a background/desktop for my Windows/Dell monitor? Maybe something with that I can tweak a bit if I want to play? (serious inquiry)


----------



## get-lit

PM me what you're looking for.

I made icons for config and power, grouped them to lower right, and enlarged the meters to fill the upper right.

EDIT: Made an icon for the ignite button. Thickened the blue lines.


----------



## Helmut.G

get-lit said:


>



I'm not going to buy a Nightsword, but I personally like the above display style best so far. (with the low moved to the top)

It's clean and professional looking.


Now this one:





looks extremly cool, futuristic and hi-tec. I like it too.



however, your last picture:





looks like a cheap compromise between the two above to me. I don't like that.


----------



## get-lit

I appreciate the feedback. It's probably the thicker lines and less glow you're not liking. I'll try some things.


----------



## BVH

Can you post the latest along side the one from last night where you dropped the reflections and eliminated the glow from the blue lines? I'm thinking I like last nights better than todays but would like to see side by side. Seems like last nights version reminded me of the case graphics more so than todays.


----------



## get-lit

Helmut's feedback was spot on and I can get too wrapped up in the direction I'm going with something that I don't see the obvious. I'm going to take a step back and have a fresh look later. I have some good ideas in mind I'll work on and post up, better than the version I think you're recalling BVH.


----------



## get-lit

Ok, two versions.. a clean strictly functional display (less is more), and then a more graphic display.

Both now use the same set of icons, no text buttons.
Left icons are: PLAY, STROBE, and LOW POWER
Right icons are POWER and SETTINGS

I don't prefer the previous placement of the POWER and SETTINGS on the lower right, because the thumb becomes less comfortable pressing toward the lower right.
*
EDIT: Thee have been updated as per follow-up discussions.*

*Here's the clean display...
*(also has a meter for lamp hours.)
(The meters are very large, yet subdued in color to not be obtrusive among the controls)
(Meters make good use of space by separating the buttons from the thumb slider)






*The clean display on the housing (top view):*







*Here's the more graphic display...*







*The graphic display on the housing (top view):*








*Less Intense Color...*













*Less Intense Color with Grey&Black Background...




*






*
Less Intense Color with No background...*











*Ignition...*


----------



## get-lit

deleted - redundant.


----------



## BVH

I bought the 2KW Yamaha inverter genset as a field powering system for the NS. I still want to consider a completely quiet option. Have you done any more thinking of what you might use for your own operation of the NS away from AC power availability? A 1000 Watt inverter would, I think, be just a little shy of the capacity to start the NS but probably OK to run it. Let's say it needs 1200 Watts for starting. Using a 12V input full sine wave, 2000 Watt inverter would require about 100 Amps of current. Is my thinking correct here?


----------



## BVH

The above was from a couple hours ago and forgot to post it.

I definitely like the more jazzy display. But for me, there is too much glow around all the buttons and the cobalt-to-background fade. The glow doesn't let the cobalt fade to black and reduces the contrast of all the button graphics. Maybe some color for the hour meter?


----------



## get-lit

I got these up quick to get feedback, and happen to be working on the glow issue already. My amp meter during power-up indicates there is little power required when turning it on. The meter starts around 100W and works up to 1000W.


----------



## BVH

Do you think your meter is sampling and displaying at a rate that is fast enough to catch the initial strike inrush current? Or maybe if it's that short a duration, it might not be an issue. Will the Super Short Arc lamp make any difference in power requirements? Will an inverter, either 12V or 24V input be in your power supply arsenal?


----------



## get-lit

I considered it the amp meter may not be reading quick enough, but my instinct tells me it's just not using much power. Super short is same power.


----------



## get-lit

Ok, the images are cleaned up now. Be sure to do a hard refresh to re-fetch all images (CTRL+F5 on a PC).


----------



## BVH

Lots better! I like it!


----------



## get-lit

I was leaning toward a less graphic display for a simple refined look, but the graphic is growing on me.


----------



## ez78

I like the simple version better in post 811. I think the solid color icons look higher quality than the ones with gradient in the more colorfull version. Just matter of tastes I quess. I have to say I am not yet sure if I will be able to get one of these once they become available but like to give some input anyways.


----------



## London Lad

I MUCH prefer the simple one over and above all the previous options posted to date.

To my mind it looks much more funtional and profesional, the bright coloured ones with excessive graphics and animation make the light look like a children's game IMHO.


----------



## get-lit

Thanks for the input guys. I definitely agree. I've been deliberately going all over the board to cover as much ground as I can before programming the display, so that once it's done I don't look back and wish I'd done it any different.

In the end this is not a toy. I've just updated the graphic image again in my final attempt to clean it up and make it more suited for its purpose. In post #811, I've also added other less vibrant versions to see if that helps. I think they are the improvement that makes the difference.

Please refresh, take a look at them again, and let me know if your impressions change. If the last revisions don't cut it, I'll be switching gears to work on the strictly functional version.

Thanks!!


----------



## London Lad

In the current post 811 my preference is still the first pic closely followed by the last


----------



## ez78

Thanks for the update. My favourite would still be the clean version. I think it's good to have some color, but that version still blends nicely with the body and it's styling. Does not pop out too much.

Edit: Didn't notice all the versions. My second choice would be the one with less intense color and no background, but still think the gradient in the icons maybe gives it some of that "game" look. Maybe flat color would look more business.


----------



## get-lit

Thank you ez78.

Just added another purely for the fun of it.


----------



## London Lad

Still this followed by this!


----------



## BVH

I much prefer the more graphic display. This is a flashy light (no pun intended) and the display should reflect this.



get-lit said:


> *Here's the more graphic display...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The graphic display on the housing (top view):*


----------



## get-lit

The differences are so stark, I like both for very different and valid reasons, it may be worth making two versions of the display that can be toggled in the settings.


----------



## knegolf

First of, I would like to commend you on your amazing effort to see this to the end even through some very hard design challenges. This is truly inspiring in so many ways. I have been following this thread for about 18 months now, and this is the first time that I feel that I have something worth while to say about the design. I should also point out that I won't be one of the lucky few that can afford or justify purchasing one of these awesome lights, so my opinion shouldn't be considered with the same weight as BVH's or any of the other potential buyers.
With that said, I would like to say that I am a bit torn between the more clean layout of the display and the more graphic one. As they both stand right now, I would probably choose the less graphic one since its color-scheme really complements the texture of the carbon fiber and the other graphics on the light. My main issue with the more graphic of the two is that it has (in my opinion) too many different shades and nuances of color. I think that the culprit here is the fact that the bar graphs are solid color which kind of mismatches the more shaded icons, and there also seems to be differences in hue which kind of makes it look a bit too much like a candy store (absolutely no offense meant, it is just the best way that I can describe it). If these bar graphs were a bit more matched to the overall color scheme, I think that I would start preferring the graphic display since the over all layout of the thing is very much appealing to me aesthetically. 

I also think that it might be a good idea to post the pictures of the displays side by side with the graphics on the side of the NS to get a better view of how the lights color scheme would play out in its entirety.

Another thing that hit me yesterday was a detail about the focus slider. If I understand things correctly the light will start focusing as soon as you start moving the slider up and down, as well as focuses directly to the point you set it to by pressing anywhere on the length of the slider. Would it be possible to program it in such a way that the focusing doesn't start until you lift your thumb of the slider which would allow you to set your desired focus by looking at the numbers displayed on the slider and then have it go to that focus directly. And if real time tracking of the thumbs movement is desired, a simple double click on the slider could be used to go into real time tracking. This could also be applied the other way around. I just thought that it could be a neat little detail for the user interface.

Once again. Thank you for letting us follow your journey to the perfect light.


----------



## get-lit

Thank you knegolf for the kind words. It's nice to know that the headache and effort is appreciated. Those difficult phases of experimentation and setbacks make the construction phase all the more worth it.

I'll definitely include a setting to toggle how the slider action works. I'm not sure I'd have it change the setting with a double tap because inadvertent double taps could occur frequently when using the slider actively.

I'm likely going to include two versions of the display to toggle between, so this should give the flexibility needed to suit most people's preferences.

The display is scheduled to arrive tonight so I can post photos of the design variations while being shown on the actual display. This should help a lot.

Also, everyone's view carries weight. I hope that anyone following along would feel free to let me know their impressions.


----------



## get-lit

I just thought of something, I may be able to make the objects in the display blend with different backgrounds, if gradient transparency is supported in the display. If that's the case, the user may be able to use any background by uploading it to the CF card. Maybe I cold also include the ability to upload button sets as well. That way, we would only need the programming for one display scheme, but with much more flexibility. I'll be looking into this.


----------



## HKJ

Could the buttons not be part of the background?


----------



## get-lit

I've been looking to see if can be done. The display would need to be able to support gradient transparency, aka alpha-transparency.

EDIT: Unfortunately I just found that it does not. It only supports setting transparency of a single color from to fully opaque to fully transparent. This is too limited to be useful for nice looking graphics on different backgrounds.

That leaves the possibility of using interchangeable image sets, where the user would upload or otherwise configure which set to use in the FL card. If would be better if I could create a setting for the user to switch among image sets from within the display, but I know the display's core programming libraries don't support this. I may be able to modify the display's core programming libraries for this.

Whatever amount of work it takes to arrive at a solution for multiple image sets, I think it would be easier and better than settling on a single display design for everyone.


----------



## HKJ

I wonder why you want a button set, as long as they are static on the background, why not make them part of the background.

But files with the digits 0 to 9 and symbols could be used to customize the fonts.
And if you split the slider into 20 steps, each step could be a separate file, making customization of the slider possible. The same could be done with the bars.

Then you just need a definition file for the touch positions and placement of elements, and everything can be customized.


----------



## get-lit

That's pretty much the plan. The button images will have the background as part of them. I've done web work back in the 90s before alpha transparency, even before any transparency at all, it's not the ideal way but it can be done just fine.

The button sets I'm referring to would be groups of images which come together to make up the display as a set of images. There's several possibilities for maintaining multiple sets for multiple display themes, as long as the dimensions of the images remain the same among all themes.


----------



## BVH

The programming talk is beyond me but interesting to read. The two-option would be nice. I don't think I'm exactly correct here but I'm trying to remember the input Voltage options for NS - 120VAC - XXXVAC and 120VDC to XXXVDC?


----------



## get-lit

90-264 VAC (120-300 VDC)


----------



## get-lit

Ok so after adding the finishing touches to the strictly practical display and I like it. The meters are thinner and spaced between bars. This makes them just as easy to see because their pixel brightness is 100%, yet overall they are dim in relation to the slider because of the bar spacing. I've also included color-graduated bars on the meters to indicate level of caution.


----------



## get-lit

Also, as it's been requested that the slider actually work as a touch function, where you just touch the display where you want the beam spread to go. If we go this route, I'd have the display be...

*Multicolor...*







*Blues*







*Reds*






*Greens*





*Indigo*





*Pink (Women like lights too)






**Compared...*









I'm very much liking this display layout, more than anything so far... most functional use of screen space, and I actually think it looks the best. To be honest, I'm left with little interest in a "graphical" display.


----------



## London Lad

I like that but prefer the slider.

Are the meters showing a reading in the last pic or is that their 'off' positions, I find them a little confusing?


----------



## get-lit

We can use the same thumb area display style for slide action as well.

Each meter has three colors, graduating in the amount of caution. Caution is most at the bottom for the Lamp meter (L) and also for the Air flow meter (A), so those meter colors are reverse next to Lamp (L) and Fan (F). I was thinking to keep the Air flow and Fan next to each other, but I should probably put the reversed caution meters next to each other. That would make it much easier to assess cautions at a glance. I'll go ahead and do is that way, but not going to be updating the drawings to reflect this for a while, so keep that in mind.

EDIT: Actually, all of the caution colors could be the same direction if I make the reverse caution meters start from top to bottom. That's what I'll do.


----------



## ez78

I'm liking the latest screens. Good job. :thumbsup: Maybe I'd go with the multicolor but the red and indigo aren't far behind. It's starting to be a difficult decision. Not totally sure about the striped meters instead of dim solid color.. Oh and, I think I'd prefer to see whole words under the meters like in the previous versions. Now when I look at the meters I have to think about it for couple of seconds.


----------



## get-lit

See next post..


----------



## get-lit

3-Letter abbreviations added, that's the best I can do there.

Another change to the meters... 
I've set up the Lamp meter to meter the lamp time remaining rather than the lamp time consumed. Now all meters move in the same direction, and the "caution" directions are the same (red at bottom for most caution, green at top for least caution). I'm not including caution bars for the fan because cooling caution is ultimately about the resulting air flow. The fan could be maxed out to pressurize against head wind, yet there may still be adequate air flow reserve, so cooling caution is really all about air flow. The fan meter is included to help gauge the amount of reserve power for pressurizing against head wind.


----------



## London Lad

Much better


----------



## get-lit

Ok solid meters too..










*I really like this.. super clean and organized, best use of space.
*It's a perfect display for the bottom of a beam hitting the clouds.


----------



## London Lad

I like that format, beautifully clear and functional. I still like the slider and think that more subdued colours look more professional


----------



## ez78

Thank you for showing that option also. Now that I've seen the solid meters I think your original striped meters were better. Maybe because they seemed darker overall. By the way, in post 811 there was this glow surrounding the icons. I thought that was kind of nice. Sorry if I am giving you hard time with all the wishes. I'll just observe this incredible project for couple of days.


----------



## get-lit

Ok guys, putting it all together... but instead of going back to the striped meters, here's thin meters...


----------



## London Lad

I've surprised myself but on reflection I prefer this:-


----------



## BVH

I like this one. Not quite sure how the meter bars work. When operating normally, only the upper green portion would be lit and as caution conditions occur, yellow and then red drop in a downward progression? 

How do you control focus with this version?

I would like this one with either the solid bars or segmented bars - hard choice.





get-lit said:


> Ok solid meters too..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I really like this.. super clean and organized, best use of space.
> *It's a perfect display for the bottom of a beam hitting the clouds.


----------



## get-lit

Ok here's the solution I'm going with for display themes.. I'm going to set this up so that the button images can be swapped in the CF card. That means we will only be able to make different button variations. Everything else about the display would have to remain the same. I have much else to get done yet, and this is not something that is imperative to finishing the project. I will work on creating full theme selection capability as a firmware update after this project is complete.

I have time to apply to programming development while I wait to accrue funds for other areas, but I still have a lot of other programming to accomplish outside of the display.

Since only the button images can be changeable, at least until after the project is done, I need to come up with a display layout incorporating all other elements in a way that works for most people. This includes the positioning, size, and color of the meters, hour meter, beam angle text, and thumb slider. I'm just about set on staying with the locations of the elements of recent posts. The buttons on far sides, thumb slider at top middle, and vertical meters in between is the most functional use of space. We have a lot of ideas out there so far, and I need to hear any and all final suggestions before I nail this down.




BVH said:


> When operating normally, only the upper green portion would be lit and as caution conditions occur, yellow and then red drop in a downward progression?



All meters begin from the very bottom and move upward. All except the fan meter begin in the red, progressing to yellow, and then to green. The final colors and shape etc is yet to be decided, but will be done so fairly soon. The multi-color bars is actually not really necessary. It's a matter of preference.

Here's my position on solid bars versus segmented bars. First off, I like large meters that are highly visible from a distance. It just looks serious business. Having said that, I also think that subdued meters are nice, but only when done with solid thin bars rather than segmented bars. Overall, my preference leans toward large solid bars, each with three vibrant colors. Again this is something we have to live with, the size, type, and color, until I develop new firmware for full theme selection down the road.

Also, currently my take regarding "graphics" style displays is this.. Space occupied by a functional element is fundamentally better than space occupied by purely cosmetic graphics, at least within the confines of these small displays.




BVH said:


> How do you control focus with this version?



My goal is to have a user setting to change between slide action and touch action. Both would work with the thumb pad style of recent posts.


----------



## BVH

OK, I think I understand the meter orientation now. When everything is normal, all three colors would be displayed and as a caution event occurs, the upper green would disappear leaving only the yellow caution and red alert. and Finally if its a full alert only the red would be displayed, right? I'm happy with the layout and colors in my last post above. Only other suggestion is regarding bar operation. When operating normally, all three colors are displayed. My eyes are always drawn to the red and yellow telling me somethings wrong when there is nothing wrong. What if the bars start at the bottom and are all green for about 1/3 of the height available. If a caution event occurs, the bar turns all yellow and grows to 2/3 of the available height and if an alert occurs, then the bar turns completely red and is full height? 

I love the idea of future possible firmware updates for display and any other functions.


----------



## London Lad

BVH said:


> OK, I think I understand the meter orientation now. When everything is normal, all three colors would be displayed and as a caution event occurs, the upper green would disappear leaving only the yellow caution and red alert. and Finally if its a full alert only the red would be displayed, right? I'm happy with the layout and colors in my last post above. Only other suggestion is regarding bar operation. When operating normally, all three colors are displayed. My eyes are always drawn to the red and yellow telling me somethings wrong when there is nothing wrong. What if the bars start at the bottom and are all green for about 1/3 of the height available. If a caution event occurs, the bar turns all yellow and grows to 2/3 of the available height and if an alert occurs, then the bar turns completely red and is full height?
> 
> I love the idea of future possible firmware updates for display and any other functions.



I thought this at first but, as is, the bars get bigger as there is 'more' of the item being metered.


----------



## get-lit

When something being metered begins at a cautionary condition, there is no way to start its meter as safe. The lamp is only stable beyond a certain amount of power. It also shouldn't be shut off until it has reached full power. Same with air flow, it's a problem when there isn't enough.

Lamp hours could be handled either way, by either metering the time remaining or the time consumed. If I make it time consumed rather than time remaining, then the bar will rise to red rather than drop to red.

I suppose I could set the air flow as an amount needed as opposed to the amount provided. So instead of the meter displaying we have x amount of air flow, we could have it display that we are short x amount of air flow. The controller will manage air flow within need, unless the fan begins to become overpowered by head wind pressure. If I configure it this way, the meter will hover around the zero mark the vast majority of the time. The way it's shown in the drawings, it measures the amount of air flow we have rather amount needed, so it would hover near the top most of the time.

As far as changing how we configure the meter for the lamp, there's never going to be a condition in which the lamp is over-powered in this system, and red will always be associated with under-power. I could make the power meter monitor the amount of power needed to reach max rather than the amount of power consumed.

Flipping the configuration of these things really changes how to use the meters. It becomes a matter of seeing what is needed as opposed to seeing what you got. In simplest terms, would you like to see how much you have in the cup, or rather how much is needed to fill it?

Seeing the three colors is a result of seeing how much we have as opposed to how much we need. The bars will initiate at the lows, and then rise up to the green as the system stabilizes.

If we flip the meters to become how much is needed, the bars will initiate at the peaks, and then drop down to the green as the system stabilizes.
*
EDIT* - I should also mention that meters showing what you have rather than what you need is a more involving method, because you get all of the information, but in a less easy manner to identify with. You not only see how much you have, but you can also deduce how much reserve there is until there becomes need.

On the other hand, meters showing what you need rather than what you have, are more intuitive by simplifying to only reveal when there is need. When the need goes away, the meters bottom out and you don't see how much you have.

I have some ideas I'm working on regarding this.


----------



## BVH

OK, that helps explain it so I can now understand better. I see that showing what you have gives you more of the picture and makes more sense to me now.


----------



## funkychateau

I can't see any of the pictures, just a box with a red "x". I tried right-clicking on the box and selecting "show pictures", but that did not result in any change. Help?


----------



## Patriot

>




Man, I'm gone for a day or two and everything changes....lol Must be one of the most active threads on CPF right now! 

I was kind of liking the same display that BVH liked with the blue's and the glow, but no biggie. Since we're on to this design, I really like everything about it accept the big, white rectangle. I think it needs to be colored along with the clock. The slider is still great with me as well. 

Thanks for all of your work Get-lit. You have some amazing ideas!


----------



## get-lit

funkychateau said:


> I can't see any of the pictures, just a box with a red "x". I tried right-clicking on the box and selecting "show pictures", but that did not result in any change. Help?



Try using a different browser.


Regarding the thumb slider, I prefer to set up an "Absolute" positioning method, it's the easiest to set up and is the most intuitive to use. It would use both touch and slide actions. Touching goes to the beam spread position associated with the position touched on the pad. Sliding would then also track the beam spread in real time as you slide, from the point touched to the point ended.

I received the display and programming module for the display. The display itself has better touch and slide response than I had anticipated, noticeably better than my Garmin Edge 800 biking GPS. As expected with TFT screen, indirect, or angled viewing, and black levels are not the greatest. OLED would be really nice but would have to wait for OLED to become available in a size large enough to use as a touch screen. I can proceed with TFT and then migrate to OLED if it becomes available before the project is complete.


----------



## get-lit

Here's my solution for an easier to identify "caution" color function with the meters. This is shown with all meters illuminated. However, all meters begin in at the black line at the bottom of the green, and increase upward with gain, for seeing how much you "have". The yellow/red bars below the black line are separate meters for cautionary monitoring of how much you "need". This makes it so that the caution colors are only displayed when there is a "need" condition. As "need" conditions grow, the bars illuminate downward from the black line, into the yellow and then into the red...








Here is display of initial startup, with power near bottom and power caution initiating in the red. As power increases, the green bar grows upward, and the caution bar also diminishes upward toward the black line...







Here is display of normal operation, with no caution colors showing...







Here is display of an an impending air flow fault, the "FAN" meter is extending downward into the yellow and a bit into the red. It is nearing it's maximum capability to power against an air-flow restriction (head wind pressure, dirty filter, blocked intakes). Since it is not yet completely max out, it is still within the threshold of maintaining air flow within bounds, and the air flow meter is not yet beginning to indicate a shortage. It will if the fan is pushed beyond max red...







Here is display of an air flow fault, the "AIR" flow meter is extending downward into the yellow and a bit into the red. Once it hits red, the controller will shut off the lamp to preserve the retro-reflector and lamp seals (BTW, retro-reflector will burn up before the anode seal overheats). The fan had already max-ed to the red just before the air flow began to diminish, the point at which an air-flow restriction (head wind pressure, dirty filter, blocked intakes) began to overtake the fan's maximum ability...







*What's nice about this method is that you still get to see what you "have" while also seeing the yellow/red caution colors ONLY while they exist.*

EDIT - What's especially helpful with this method is that this accommodates VARYING "caution" conditions. For instance, during startup, air flow requirement is very small, and that requirement itself increases as the lamp powers up. During startup, the green "AIR" flow bar will be at a lower point than when under full lamp power, but still within bounds of its current requirement. So having a stationary marked caution color as with the previous method would be a problem, since it could not handle varying caution conditions like this method does.


----------



## London Lad

Excellent


----------



## get-lit

I've been experimenting with the display and realized something different has to be done here. There's some issues with the display. First off the thumb doesn't like extending to the top outer buttons because the screen is so wide. That in of itself is not a problem because I could move those top buttons inward. In fact all of the buttons are much better off moved inward. I could then move the meters to the outside. However, the overall feel of the thing is just so clunky with the screen being so overly wide for its purpose. The icons are all much too large and the meters are borderline ridiculous, which brings us to the next problem... This thing is too bright!! It washes out your vision in the dark. And come to find out, dimming is not possible with these. So I've been attempting ways to mitigate the brightness. Switching to red doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but using much smaller icons, and making the meters as small as functionally possible went a long way. Being an LCD/TFT screen, it emits a fair amount of light even with an all black screen. Areas of the wide screen that could be otherwise unused only contribute to the luminance even when those pixels are black.

To make this have a better overall look and feel, a less wide screen is needed, and would help with the brightness issue by having less luminous area. The wide screen is 400x240 pixels, and the standard format is 340x240 in the same height. So I experimented with 340x240 screens by letterboxing them into the wide screen display I have to get a feel for how it would work out. Definitely much better. The smaller icons look so much more refined in their simplicity. I removed the circles from the play and Low Power buttons, and the small meters are just perfect. I also widened the thumb slider. Everything looks the part now...


----------



## BVH

The inability to dim the display sure changes things! Would getting rid of a little more of the white text help reduce overall brightness a little more - maybe change the "time" field to a color? When thumb-sliding the focus to minimum, as long as your thumb is firmly on the screen and you swipe your thumb across and beyond the slider vertical border, will that ensure that focus is at max focus or do you sort of have to find the right spot to stop? Will the speed of the focus follow your thumb movement speed or will there be mechanical lag due to motor speed?


----------



## London Lad

How about a toggle switch and a warning light ;-)


----------



## HKJ

Why can you not dim the background light?


----------



## get-lit

Here's what I've found when experimenting with different brightness reduction methods.. The biggest improvement is in reducing the amount of illuminated pixels. Changing color hue away from Cyan/Magenta/Yellow helps, but it is much better to make an object smaller than to reduce it's color brightness, because making it smaller reduces its net luminance while also maintaining pixel luminance for legibility when viewing at the distances we're at. Dimmer pixels tend to get lost in the screen because the background is somewhat luminous. This effect occurs more with indirect viewing angles. It's simply not worth it to dim the pixels when the background doesn't dim with it as well, you just lose contrast.

Our last version we sort of settled on, had 38840 luminous pixels, and the new one has 6680, which is almost 6 times less. That alone pretty much takes care of the entire problem.






London Lad said:


> How about a toggle switch and a warning light ;-)



That's much too complicated ;-)
*EDIT -* actually it's more difficult to assemble and wire each light with separate buttons for power, focus, strobe, dim, play, and indicator light(s), etc than a single screen.




HKJ said:


> Why can you not dim the background light?



This I don't fully understand either. I guess it depends on the display control board or display itself. It needs to be transistor connected to PWM dim the backlight, but most don't. I would have to go with some other product line with another manufacturer. That is the last thing I want to do because this company has all of the development steps clearly outlined, and has excellent development tools, all speeding up development tremendously. Additionally, their products integrate an incredible little video processor that takes the display processing resources off the hands of our primary control board, freeing it up to have reserve for other areas. It also reduces the amount of communication pins consumed of the control board from around 12 to just 2, again allowing for much better future expansion capability with the main control board.

At this point I'm still looking into OLED with touch. I sent an inquiry with this company about any anticipated future OLED touch screen offerings. I've also seen separate touch panels made to be mounted over displays and I may be able to use that over this company's OLED displays.


----------



## get-lit

Currently the largest OLED display is 1.32"Wide by 1.06"high (160x128 pixels). That's small but just large enough for what's needed.

I'm also toying with the idea of not using a digital screen, but rather use a touch digitizer over a screen printed film with button cutouts for light to pass through from an LED backlight.


----------



## get-lit

*F*orgot...


BVH said:


> When thumb-sliding the focus to minimum, as long as your thumb is firmly on the screen and you swipe your thumb across and beyond the slider vertical border, will that ensure that focus is at max focus or do you sort of have to find the right spot to stop? Will the speed of the focus follow your thumb movement speed or will there be mechanical lag due to motor speed?



If the thumb is slid past the sensor area, the focus will go to the maximum position since it would be the last position touched on the sensor area. The speed of the focus will track thumb movement speed. Mechanical lag would not be apparent unless swiping fast, but it would quickly catch up and land at the last position touched. The motor is powerful enough to handle gearing for very fast movement, probably under 1/4 second for full travel. But it can also go as slow as the operator wants to slide the thumb.


----------



## HKJ

get-lit said:


> This I don't fully understand either. I guess it depends on the display control board or display itself. It needs to be transistor connected to PWM dim the backlight, but most don't.



Doing a pwm on backlight is usual very simple, do it have some other problem?


----------



## Patriot

get-lit said:


> The motor is powerful enough to handle gearing for very fast movement, probably under 1/4 second for full travel. /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> oo: I would have never guessed! That's really quite amazing! I guess I was expecting something more along the lines of a Maxabeam. It would figure that Get-lit would be using a far better system.


----------



## BVH

And the Maxabeam focus system is very loosie-goosie due to the large, kind of clunky 4-way rocker switch and there is some type of time delay between moving it and seeing a movement.


----------



## get-lit

I don't have any ambition to out-do or knock the Maxabeam, it's a respectable light having been the staple workhorse for decades. I don't even know anything about it's focus and alignment system, and never held one myself. Wanted to come up with my own ideas.

I have a lot to say about this screen at this point and will I'll be replying about it after I do another test here.


----------



## get-lit

I used a Lux meter to see the numbers behind why I don't like the screen. They're worse than I expected...

->With all red objects, the luminance of the background accounts for 84% of the screen's net luminance. That's 1.2:1 contrast ratio. Terrible.

->With all red objects but colored buttons, the luminance of the background accounts for 73% of the screen's net luminance. That's 1.4:1 contrast ratio. Terrible.

->With all white objects, multi-colored buttons, the luminance of the background accounts for 62% of the screen's net luminance. That's 1.6:1 contrast ratio. Terrible.

The manufacturer has posted multiple times on their forum that the brightness can not be changed. Maybe it can be done with a hardware mod. But even if there's a way to lower the brightness, the horrible contrast ratio would still apply, as the brightness of the active pixels would also reduce.

I measured the on/off contrast, a test with all white screen compared to a test with all black screen, and it came to 42:1. That's pretty bad. That's also at an optimal measure angle for this screen, which is a fairly small viewing cone. Go too far out of the viewing cone and the contrast actually becomes negative!! Yuck.

To get the most out of the screen's limited contrast, we would have to make a screen with half the pixels lit full white and reduce the brightness way down. That means large icons, large lines, and no tiny text, everything that would negate the benefit of the screen's resolution.

The reason the screen has such bad black level is because it's a high resolution for a small backlit screen with full color. Backlit screens have more space between pixels when pixel density is increased and with full color. 
The screen has 2.5 times more pixel density than my 1920x1200 LCD computer monitor. I'm guessing this is also the cause of the display's small viewing cone. 

Even though smartphones have extremely high pixel density, they are OLED/POLED/AOLED which isn't backlit and doesn't have light passing through their screen door. A high density color LCD is absolutely the worst combination for night viewing.

I tried real hard to like this screen and frankly I'm fed up with it. I would hate to have to look at this while driving. Of course there are decent LCD screens on car stereos, but they are negative mode, very low resolution and usually one color at a time across all pixels, so they can be made with much better black level. My Garmin Edge 800 color screen is ok at night, definitely not great, but it is a very low resolution.

Very high resolution OLED screens for smartphones are dominated by just a few manufacturers, primarily Samsung I believe. Other smartphone manufacturers have to buy Samsung's screens in high numbers through contract. For us little guys, the best we can currently do for OLED is from manufactured by Densitron and Midas. Other companies offer packaged displays from those two manufacturers. Those packages can include a "shield" with embedded video processor to take the video processing load off the main controller board and reduce the number of com pins required of the main control board. For our application, a packaged display with shield is required.

So here's what I'm thinking. Use a transparent glass touch panel, not a display screen but just a transparent touch panel, wired directly to the main controller board to send touch and swipe signals directly to the main controller board independent of any display. It would be a part of the light housing, embedded for the best water-tight seal possible. These are good for millions of hard presses, and have no electronic components. Separating the touch component out give all kinds of flexibility we otherwise just don't have. It also gives the flexibility to use newer displays as needed in the future without making mods to the light housing.

Here's two great screen possibilities behind an embedded transparent glass touch panel...

1. OLED display of our choice. These are simply the best digital displays you can get, black pixels are actually black, zero back-light glow. I'm currently looking more into packaged OLED displays with shields. I wasn't looking before because we needed them with touch screen before, and they don't come that way.

2. Physical display... I could use a screen-printed transparent film with the a back-light. The buttons would emit light through the transparent areas of the film. This is similar to how car dashboards work and is the best looking, most natural, easiest on the eyes, sharpest lines, not formed with pixels. I could use an RGB LED for changing the color and brightness of the display. I could also include a 2-line character OLED display for hour meter & focus angle, menus and functions, feedback, notices, etc. Character displays don't need a shield because they use no resources like graphic displays. This is by far the easiest to do, but would not provide for animated meters. Meters were never a necessity for this project, just a bonus with the digital display. The screen printed transparent film could have the same icon buttons I've been using, for Flash, Low Power, and Power button, square outline for thumb slider, plus and up, down, and enter to cycle through a menu on the character display.

Also, when going with a housing-embedded transparent glass touch panel, the two methods above could be interchanged with one another without changing the housing. I'm very much displeased with this LCD display and would like some feedback on my alternative ideas.


----------



## get-lit

Here's the "Physical" display I mentioned, using a single transparent glass touch panel, over a screen-printed transparent film, over an RGB LED back-light. The transparent screen-printed film would allow light through for touch buttons and slider and would block all light through the un-lit areas unlike LCD/TFT screens. We wouldn't be constrained to the limited availability of graphic OLED displays. An OLED "character" display would be at the bottom center. OLED "character" displays are readily available, easy to use, and don't require a shield like "graphic" displays do. Buttons on left would include, power, flash, low. Buttons on right would include up, enter, down, for cycling through menus on the OLED character display.


----------



## BVH

First off, I love flashy, high performance video displays. I have one of the last Pioneer Plasma Kuro Television sets they made - the 8G. They made one more, the 9G before they chose to stop production of the best black-level Plasma ever made. The demonstrated the fantastic black levels at CES by having the audience enter the room with the TVs on (the audience did not know this) but with no picture what-so-ever. Then they turned off the lighting to a black room. Then they did nothing until the people began to ask when the sets would be turned on. To which they replied that the sets were already on. The black levels are phenomenal on the 9G's you really can't tell their on with no picture. Anyway back on subject. I probably let myself get to deep into the screen on the NS. It's all about what this light will do with its' Lumens and focus. You describe the problems very clearly with the TFT screen. If I understand correctly, option #1 is using a great quality OLED with a touch-sensitive piece of glass over it which is embedded into the case. In this case, you can still have multiple "pages" of displays such as the HOME screen and then the next screen requesting a password whereas this would not be the case with option #2. Animation is still possible with option #1 whereas it is not with option #2.

I would prefer Option #1.

EDIT: I was composing when you posted the above post. So multiple "displays" would be available and presented on the 2-line character display.

I'd still like option #1 but would be pleased with either option 1 or 2.


----------



## London Lad

I love this!


----------



## get-lit

With this setup, I could actually still go with a "graphic" OLED character display with "shield" for the section below the thumb slider, in which case we could still display animated meters if needed. The sole issue with using a "graphic" OLED display for the entire display, not just the section below the slider, is that they aren't available large enough with shields. There's plenty available small enough for the display area below the thumb slider.

Also my thinking is this, why apply so many discreet pixels to areas of the display that don't need to change. It's a waste of resources.

*EDIT - There's also a major benefit to having the primary controls remain static, you never lose awareness of the controls, and they're still available for use while navigating menus.*


----------



## ez78

I think that glass touch panel setup has the potential to look solid and high quality without the weird effects that LCD panels shows when viewed from the side. And I actually like the simple looks too. Of course an OLED would be nice too if suitable model materializes somewhere.


----------



## get-lit

Won't work.. when cycling the menu, the thumb will cover it.

I've come to realize that overall comfort is more important than just the thumb's comfort on the display. By having a large screen with lots of room to extend the thumb forward, the grip has to be moved back off the center of gravity. I'm finding I prefer to have the grip forward without tons of thumb space on the controls. Therefore a small display just might be best. The largest OLED currently available can be done well with some tweaks.

In the display below, the buttons on the left are FLASH and LOW, and the buttons on the right contained within beam spread slider are POWER and SETTINGS. Those two buttons must be held down for a period of time to activate, otherwise those touches function as a beam spread adjustment.

I could have an info screen pop-up covering the display after a short period of inactivity, the info screen containing all of the meters and current beam spread degrees, run time, etc. When touched, the controls could appear. 

The settings menu would then interact as touch screen.

1.32" x 1.06" OLED Display...











*EDIT - *In my last post I mentioned the benefit of static controls. There is also a benefit to swapping pages of the display between the controls page, the info page, and the settings pages.. there is less light coming at you when only one is displayed at a time, so each could be independently brighter and thus easier to read, than if all were lit at once.

Like or no?


----------



## BVH

I like this idea of screen swapping and the shared space for prolonged touch buttons and the focus slider. In the pics above, does it indicate that two separate screens will be installed side-by-side?


----------



## get-lit

No, this display is just the OLED. The drawing is the screen of the primary controls. The white square just outlines the thumb slider. This version I like for it's simplicity while still including all of the features we've discussed so far.


----------



## London Lad

I like the simplicity. Its very hard to judge without 'trying it'


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> 1.32" x 1.06" OLED Display...



OK, so this is one OLED screen. I guess it looks like two because of the appearance of the white strip of the border down the center and the other 3 sides of the border blend into the CPF forum white background?


----------



## ez78

Interesting version. Not sure about this one. I think I might feel a bit worried about accidentally activating the POWER button when adjusting the beam spread. Would be aware of it all the time. Could the beam spread adjustment portion of the screen be even more narrow so that the icons would fit outside it? I quess you have probably tried that already. I think at the moment I like the glass touch panel version more.


----------



## get-lit

I think you're spot on ez78. I very much agree for two reasons. The screen printed glass touch panel looks much better, but most importantly, it's more durable. For a tool I intend to be used out in the field and in harsh environments, a digital screen just becomes another link in the chain of components that could fail, the weakest link actually. Not something you want to have to rely on for the light to be operational.

So first off, the light should be fully operational without a screen. If used at all, a screen should be for convenience features only. Even then, I prefer a simpler "character display" than a "graphic" display. Having the same pixels always lit up on a "graphic" display causes them to burn into the screen. For the intended purposes of this light, I'd rather not have a screen at all, but instead have a serial connection port to a separate touch screen for changing settings.

Because of it's wide orientation, there's nowhere to put a "character" display mounted near the primary controls, so even if it were to be part of the light housing, it would probably have to be mounted on the side somewhere. Still, I'm leaning toward just a connection port to a separate touch screen. Then I could use any readily available LCD touch screen module because it doesn't have to be perfect for night use if it's just for changing the settings.


----------



## get-lit

Here's a static back-lit screen printed display that operates completely without an electronic display, but also includes a small .55"x.79" color OLED (4d Systems 0.96" diagonal) in the lower right for displaying beam degrees, timer, and settings menus. Shown with touch screen black bezel. The bezel is radiused for flush surface mount into the housing.

The UP, DOWN, ENTER buttons become active for navigating the settings displayed in the OLED when first touching the OLED area. Touching the OLED area again returns the thumb slider function, and the OLED returns to display the beam degrees, timer, and meters.

Shown with menu active and currently selected to RECORD PATTERN.











EDIT - There is more work to assembling this, but it may be worth it to include everything in the smallest size possible and to also make the light fully operational without relying on the electronic display.


----------



## get-lit

If you'd like to get a feel for the size of this under the thumb, print out this *PDF drawing*.

EDIT - My 1000th Post!!


----------



## get-lit

Here's an all "physical" display having just about all functions without using any electronic display...





Left Buttons are FLASH, PLAY, LOW POWER
Right Buttons are LAMP POWER, SCREEN BRIGHTNESS, KEY LOCK

*Button Actions -> Functions:*

Touch FLASH button *->* Intermittent flash
Hold FLASH button for 5 seconds *->* Flash remains on

Touch LOW POWER button -> Intermittent low power
Hold LOW POWER button for 5 seconds *->* Low power remains on
Hold LOW POWER button for 30 seconds *->* Set "Power Down Timeout"

*NOTE:* "Power Down Timeout" is the amount of inactivity time before system automatically shuts down if the lamp is off. I figured I'd create this setting in case someone wants to use the display for a night light. This setting remains until changed, whereas "Lamp Off Timer" applies only to the current lamp power cycle.

Touch focus slider *->* Go to absolute focus position where touched
Slide focus slider *->* Move focus position tracking slide movement
Hold focus slider for 10 seconds *->* Set Focus

Touch PLAY button -> Play animation
Hold PLAY button for 10 seconds -> Record animation

*NOTE: *Record animation will have to be a two-step process. First to record the beam spread actions. Then the beam spread actions are played back while recording the flash & dim actions.

Hold LAMP POWER button for 10 seconds *->* Set "Lamp Off Timer"
Hold LAMP POWER button for 30 seconds *->* Set "Lamp Power Button Delay"
Hold LAMP POWER button for "Lamp Power Button Delay" *->* Turn lamp on/off

*NOTE:* "Lamp Power Button Delay" is a configurable setting to determine the amount of time required to hold the power button to turn lamp on/off. Delay can be set up to 5 seconds.

Touch BRIGHTNESS *->* Cycle display brightness level
Hold BRIGHTNESS BUTTON for 30 seconds *->* Reset lamp hours

Hold KEY LOCK button for 3 seconds* ->* Buttons locked, except beam adjust
Hold KEY LOCK button for 10 seconds* ->* System Lockout
Hold KEY LOCK button for 30 seconds *->* Reset password

*NOTE: *Key Lock can be enabled even when lamp is on, although beam focus will still function. The purpose of enabling key lock even when lamp is on is to prevent inadvertent button presses in adverse use conditions.
*
NOTE: *System Lockout requires password entry for any new actions. Can be enabled even when lamp is on. Not even beam focus will function. Prevents use by other people while system is on.

*
Security:

-*All actions require password entry, just once per power cycle, unless no password is set.


*Illuminated Keypad Mode:*

-In center of slider is a keypad which only illuminates during functions "Reset Password", "Set Lamp Off Timer", "Lamp Power Button Delay", and "Set Power Down Timeout", or any time when prompted for password. Other buttons are dimmed during keypad entry. No room for "zero" on the keypad. Zero is more important than 9, so zero replaces 9 on the keypad...






What's nice about this display is there is no worry of the electronic display going bad, especially after it's gone out of production. I could still include a serial connection port for connecting with a separate touch screen to access system stats and remote control. So far, this one is my favorite. Physical buttons are always better than images of buttons on a screen and this display makes full use of that.






Keypad Mode:





EDIT - *Printable PDF*

Updated the additional functions.

For anyone still craving a display with meters etc, I could make the serial port also have a mount for a detachable display. Cool things coming out, a *Transparent OLED *would be nice.


----------



## BVH

If I digested all this correctly, the buttons are physical buttons on a membrane surface that is backlit? Or maybe the original capacitive buttons shown earlier in the thread? Will the user be able to choose a backlit color from options or a one-shot choice? There is a small OLED incorporated that shows the text. Some of those button press times are really long.


----------



## get-lit

This is a functional outline and I can change the button press times as needed. Time suggestions would be helpful.

I would like to go with an RGB LED back lighting so the user can change color and brightness of the display, but I'm not sure if there will be enough com pins to handle RGB, seeing as though two separate LED signals are already needed for the buttons and separate numeric key pad. And I need to ensure reserve for serial communication for remote control etc.


Here's the order of the display structure components from the inside out:

1. LED(s) for back lighting

2. Transparent film that has been screen printed so that only the buttons allow the backlight to pass through.

3. Transparent touch panel mounted to the housing.

The top contact surface is completely flat. I described this display type as "physical" as opposed to "graphic" because what you "see" are actual physical objects rather than graphic images on a digital screen attempting to emulate the look of actual physical objects. The luminosity gradients, shadowing, and nuances of actual illuminated buttons are all there. It's a much more polished look. The best I can describe the difference is like the looking at the fine detail of the brush strokes of a painting versus looking at a picture of the painting on a computer screen. It's just not the real deal.


Also, regarding the display surface... there are two types of touch screens, resistive and capacitive. Resistive reads slight pressure to triangulate touch position. To make touch pressure easier to detect, the top surface layer is a transparent durable hard film rather than glass.

Capacitive is all glass, but reads electrical conductance of the object touching the screen to triangulate touch position, and therefore requires touch by a conductive object. So gloves won't work. Capacitive also won't work unless there's at lease 5% humidity and no EMI. Capacitive also has issues with condensation and water drops, especially salt water.

This light must be useable with gloves, and in all weather conditions, including low humidity, rain, and adverse nautical weather with salt spray. The HV ignitor also generates lots of EMI during lamp ignition. All of this rules out a capacitive type screen, which leaves the resistive type.

The plus side for resistive rather than capacitive in this application is that resistive is a more of a "deliberate" touch method. You're less likely to accidentally nip the surface and trigger a button.

The downside to the film surface of resistive screens is they are not as durable as all glass, good for 5 million touches vs 25 million, and 500,000 gouges (of a certain size and pressure) vs 2.5 million gouges. The film is also not as clear as glass, causing a 3-5% distortion/blurring of the passing light, but not really that noticeable. What is noticeable is that the film causes reflections in sunlight, making it harder to read in the daytime. But this doesn't apply in dark where a searchlight is only used anyhow. Same with my GPS, I see the added glare in the day, although it's not bad at all, and no glare at night.

Although a rarity, resistive type touch screens with a glass top surface can be made, but it requires about 5 times the touch pressure than the film type. Therefore, all glass resistive is not the best for slide/swipe action. Also, dry glass has more sliding friction on the finger than the slippery film. A resistive glass type touch screen is the worst combination for sliding/swiping.

My Garmin Edge 800 is the resistive film type, and it's incredibly strong. I never even realized it wasn't glass until I recently learned about touch screens. My whole point is, I would like to make everyone aware that I would like to use the resistive film type because of its usability advantage, and not to be weary. Durable resistive film type is commonly used in industrial controls.


----------



## ez78

Wow, you've been busy again. I was looking at the concepts and wondering if it needed that OLED display or not. Not totally sure yet. I think overall I like the latest version without OLED more but there might be some situation where digital display might be nice. If I wanted to record an animation and held the PLAY button for ten seconds how would I know when exactly the mode has been activated if there is no display to indicate something? Would there be a "beeb" sound. And could the user still sometimes become lost in some mode like LOW POWER if nothing on the display indicates that it has been activated. Maybe I created nonexisting problems by not understanding everything yet. I tried hard to locate trouble in the design.


----------



## BVH

OK, I got it now. Resistive certainly sound like the best way to go. Will give some thought to push and hold times and post later.


----------



## get-lit

ez78, the back-light will flash to confirm actions. When recording, the user would press a button to end the recording cycle on their own, so they can determine the length of the animation as needed. Most functions are mutually exclusive, so you can't really get lost in one. The current mode would end when another is started. There may be some special circumstances that need addressed. The overly long button hold times for special functions is specifically intended to prevent such confusion.


BVH, I forgot to address your question about the OLED in the last display version... there is no OLED. The center numeric keypad is an isolated back-lit region with separate white LED.

I'm working on a new version in which that center area in the slider is an OLED for navigating functions, although not really necessary with the last version already including most functionality. The center OLED in the next version will give the added ability to see stats, meters, run-time, and beam angle. Much like the version in post #887 but with a much larger OLED due a different allocation of space. Once I have this next one ready, I'd like to see which method is preferred among it and the last one in post #889.


----------



## get-lit

Ok this is the display version to compare against the entirely "physical" display in *post #889*. This display version has a "physical" buttons on the left side and an "electronic" display on the right side, the largest OLED available.

The right side toggles between the focus slider and the settings menu, by touching (or holding if we prefer) the "SETTINGS" icon on the left side. When in "SETTINGS" mode, this OLED is large enough to click through settings by touching the settings within the OLED itself, rather than using separate UP/DOWN/ENTER buttons.

On the other hand, while the focus slider is in "FOCUS" mode instead of "SETTINGS" mode, we can also display as many, or as few, features as we'd like within the focus slider itself using the OLED. For instance, we could allocate the beam spread degrees, the meters in large or small format, the run-time, etc, or completely blank if we prefer.

The advantage of this display is that it has the dynamic convenience features of the largest OLED available, while also being fully capable of operating without the OLED because the primary controls on the left are "physical" and not part of the OLED.

Because the space for the OLED display is so large, if the display becomes damaged and this display is no longer in production, we have leeway to go with a different display of comparable size.

At this point, I like both of these last two display variations. I'm sure which I end up preferring will come to me with some time to digest the differences and benefits of both, and I'd like to get feedback from you all once you've had time to really consider both as well.


----------



## BVH

I like the above solution. I think I just like the capability to show different and live functions instead of being limited to whatever is printed on the physical display. I also like the ability to click through settings by touching the settings within the OLED itself, rather than using separate UP/DOWN/ENTER buttons. Having the OLED would possibly allow new and un-thought of capabilities to be programmed into the lights controller and therefore displayed to the user to take advantage of whereas the purely physical display would have to be changed out. It's sort of future-proofing the light.


----------



## get-lit

I'm thinking the bottom line for me is that this particular "Physical"/"Electronic" display combo gives the advantages you mention, while also addressing my two primary concerns of the light remaining operational in the field in the event of screen failure, and OLED substitution leeway if the current OLED runs out of production. I don't see any negatives, other than additional programming and a bit more assembly complexity. The additional programming will be significant in the case of OLED displays because 4D Systems does not have the quick and easy development tool for their OLEDs as they do for the LCDs, but the additional work would be worth it if it results in a more all around refined light.


----------



## get-lit

The touch panel manufacturer is offering me an incredible deal if order 100 units now, but I would first like for others here print out the drawing of the control and see how well it sizes up.

*Printable Display Drawing PDF*


----------



## Patriot

get-lit said:


> I think you're spot on ez78. I very much agree for two reasons. The screen printed glass touch panel looks much better, but most importantly, it's more durable. For a tool I intend to be used out in the field and in harsh environments, a digital screen just becomes another link in the chain of components that could fail, the weakest link actually. Not something you want to have to rely on for the light to be operational.



Based on this I'm all in with the glass touch panel. Glad you're taking the time to cut off potential issues at the pass. Awesome!


----------



## get-lit

Patriot we are now comparing it to the latest display in post #595 which has both a physical display and an electronic display, in which the searchlight would remain fully operable in the event of a broken electronic display. The analogy of the display being the weakest link does not apply in this new version because it's control system does not rely on the display to operate.

Also, would you mind printing out the PDF in post #898 and see how well it sizes up for you.


----------



## BVH

With the drawing printed to scale, cut out, and my four fingers cupped about 1" underneath the front-most part of the handle to simulate handle thickness, I looked up and noticed my thumb resting dead center on the OLED screen. It feels very natural to me. I can easily reach left for the physical screen "buttons" and my thumb feels fine sliding the imaginary slider button. All-in-all, its fits me well.


----------



## ez78

Seems like that combined setup in post 895 might be the best way to go. I like the fact that the light could be ignited without having to play with the OLED screen but it's still there to show the setting and additional info when you want to look at those. Would be nice to see the beam spread angle and power and stuff. Didn't get a chance to try that print yet. Maybe later.


----------



## London Lad

get-lit said:


> The touch panel manufacturer is offering me an incredible deal if order 100 units now, but I would first like for others here print out the drawing of the control and see how well it sizes up.
> 
> *Printable Display Drawing PDF*



This works for me


----------



## Ceya!

I've looked at it , played with where my hand should be. 

Have you thought of the icons being at the bottow and box on top in landscape mode?

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## get-lit

Doesn't turn out so well, the bottom icons have to be made a bit too small, and the OLED display board would block the back-light from illuminating the top third of them.







* EDIT - *Just found that the touch panel manufacturer was offering panels with pre-printed cell phone buttons, useless. Their minimum order for a custom size is 10,000 units. So I sent out inquiries to 15 other manufacturers. It's very difficult finding touch panels this small. I can go a bit larger, but the panel's external height needs to be <1.75" so the handle isn't pushed further back behind the center of gravity. I did happen to locate a touch panel to fit just the OLED, so something like the display in Post *#880* can be done. I expect to get a response from one of those manufacturers with the size needed here.


----------



## get-lit

Just when I thought we finally covered all of the considerations between an electronic display and a physical display, there's another significant issue. OLEDs suffer from screen burn!!

OLEDs can last tens of thousands of hours, but only when conforming to stringent design guidelines to reduce screen burn, otherwise screen burn may occur within a few hundred hours or less.

Things to definitely avoid are solid colors, and static images and lines. Basically ruling out everything we're doing here with the screens, because these exact things are all we'd be using the display for in this application... The thumb slider outline, nope. Stationary icons, nope. Fixed meters, nope. Solid color icons, nope. Combine those things and OLEDs can suffer from screen burn in less than 100 hours. Not to say that it will happen that fast, but it can. I've read reports on forums of this happening within 24 hours.

The proper way to implement OLED display in this project is to not use it for any fixed controls or display, but just for feedback only when interacting with the system, something more like post #887. I'm working on a new display version that works in this manner, but in a better fitting layout than #887.


----------



## get-lit

Again, to protect the OLED from screen burn, it shouldn't be used for stationary meters and icons. Here's a "physical" back-lit display in which the OLED is used strictly for managing settings. It can show meters in special circumstances, like showing the power ramp up during ignition.

No luck so far from any of the touch panel manufacturers. They won't produce touch panels down to the size needed without an order of 10,000 or more. I can go larger and use a stocked touch panel size, but I'm finding that I prefer the size to actually be even smaller to reduce the amount of thumb movement to as little as possible.

This display uses the only stocked touch panel I've found that is small. 

In order to make it easier to navigate a small touch screen, I simplified the layout by reducing the number of icons to just three. I'm also finding that I prefer the thumb slider to be left of center with the icons to the right, rather than right of center with the icons to the left. This orientation has a slight advantage in the ease of thumb slide movement. I figure most people are right-handed, so this slight advantage should be swayed to that majority to get the most use of that advantage.

In the display below, the three icons from top to bottom are POWER, CUSTOM, and EDIT. (Shown with rounded-corner bezel to be flush mounted to housing)...







The CUSTOM icon is a "C" with a centered dot representing a custom button. It can be assigned to be any of the functions in the menu. I myself would probably keep it assigned to FLASH or LOW.

EDIT is used to bring up the OLED menu in place of the thumb slide function, and to toggle back and forth between the OLED menu and the thumb slide function. The icon was originally to be an arrow pointing left to the menu, which I then rounded to reflect the shape of the other two icons. Afterward I recognized it looked like an "E" for EDIT.

To the left of the three icons is a vertical demarcation of the thumb slider area. The thumb slider is wide, covering the entire remaining display to the left of the icons. The thumb slider is not as high in this version of the display, and the thumb does not have to travel as much vertically for full focus range.

Below is the display with the OLED menu on. In order to fit the OLED board within the small display area, the OLED screen is very small at .55" x .79" (.96" diagonal). EDITED: As a result, it can only display three functions at a time. While in function menu mode, the top two icons (POWER and CUSTOM) are touched to cycle up and down through the functions menu, in pages of three at a time. A function is activated by touching it. Touching the EDIT button again will close the menu and resume the thumb slide function.

The two key things I prefer about this particular display is the reduced thumb movement with a smaller display, and the uncluttered layout with just three icons, so the user is not fumbling around looking at a dizzying array of icons. You can easily remember what the buttons are without having to look.



















*EDIT - Printable PDF*


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> The CUSTOM icon is a "C" with a centered dot representing a custom button. It can be assigned to be any of the functions in the menu. I myself would probably keep it assigned to FLASH or LOW. Does this mean that we, as users can assign the custom function at-will or is it something you do in hard programming?
> 
> 
> 
> Below is the display with the OLED menu on. In order to fit the OLED board within the small display area, the OLED screen is very small at .55" x .79" (.96" diagonal). As a result, it can only display one function at a time while also displaying the arrow button I don't see the ARROW BUTTON? to navigate through the function menu. The arrow button is below the current highlighted function. Each time the arrow is touched, the menu cycles to the next function. A function is activated by touching it. Touching the EDIT button again will close the menu and resume the thumb slide function.
> 
> To accommodate two or three functions to be displayed at a time, I could do away with the arrow button and use the top two icons (POWER and CUSTOM) to cycle up and down through the functions menu. I like this method better!



Will either or both of the screens (physical and/or the OLED screen backgrounds be programmable by the user? I'm liking the idea of simplicity better and better.


----------



## get-lit

The user can set which function is assigned to the custom button.

I've revised the post to remove the arrow button from the functions menu and use the additional space to display three functions at once.

At this point I'm unsure as to whether or not the colors can be set by the user. It requires more pins of the main controller board to connect with an RGB LED, and I don't think there are enough free pins. Even if a single color back-light LED has to be used, it can probably be physically change out for a different color. The colors of the OLED can be changed.

The printable PDF is updated as well.


----------



## Ceya!

For those who haven't learned what OLED is , look below.

http://www.oled-info.com/introduction

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/pattison_oled_sslmiw2011.pdf

http://www.princeton.edu/~sturmlab/theses/Florian.Pschenitzka.thesis.pdf

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57598963-221/seven-problems-with-current-oled-televisions/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED

Enjoy the read. 

As I once said" the more you KNOW, the more you GROW".


S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## get-lit

Here's the equivalent display in the entirely "physical" version...


----------



## London Lad

I find it more attractive the simpler it gets.


----------



## get-lit

I agree 100%. Do you prefer the OLED text version of the function menu? or the"physical" icon version of the function menu?


----------



## BVH

I like the OLED text version. Easy to read and scroll via the two physical buttons.


----------



## Ceya!

Text version, easy to understand . Nothing to explain.
S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## get-lit

I was split right down the middle on this one, kinda hoping to be swayed to the physical icons because it's a lot less work, but I'll do the text OLED if it's the better way. Having a clear vision that this is definitely the way to go without question along the way will make it easier to push through the more difficult work. Ordering the OLED and touch panel, and looking forward to digging right in.

This version kind of reminds me of..


----------



## London Lad

get-lit said:


> I agree 100%. Do you prefer the OLED text version of the function menu? or the"physical" icon version of the function menu?



Physical version, I think!


----------



## get-lit

Ok I'll wait for some more feedback, and at least get started with the touch panel in the meantime. So far its 2 for OLED text and 1 for physical icons.


----------



## ez78

I think I would also be happy with that fully physical version. OLED is very nice too but if it comes with a lot of extra work and potential problems then for me it's not worth it maybe. At first look I thought those three red icons look odd, but after seeing that picture from Predator I think it's a plus that the icons make it look like alien technology. And they're easy to remember anyways.


----------



## get-lit

ez78, without considering development difficulty, which do you prefer?


----------



## ez78

Well, it's almost a tie but if I am not thinking development work then I'd like to see the OLED version researached further. It does allow little bit extra features with text and meters. So I guess I change my mind and vote for the OLED.

EDIT: Would be nice to know if the OLED version is likely to be almost as realiable as the physical version? The burn seems to be one issue but can maybe be avoided but was there any other negatives with OLED? Of course anything with electronics is more prone to fail. Difficult decision between these two..


----------



## get-lit

Although OLED has a limited screen life compared to LCD, OLED is still much more reliable, especially with extreme temperatures. This version of the display addresses a screen failure event by remaining functional without the screen working.

This display version also eliminates the concern of OLED screen burn and limited life because the OLED is only "on" when navigating the function menu. Meters would be an accessible function, not something always displayed. As an option, I could include meters to be displayed all the time, but dimly lit.

Improper use of an OLED, with stationary solid colors, and always on full brightness has been reported to burn the screens within a day. Properly implemented, an OLED will last tens of thousands of hours. Since the method used in this display only uses the OLED during menu functions, it will last indefinitely.


----------



## get-lit

I have responses from two touch panel manufacturers that would do a custom-manufactured size with a minimum quantity of 1000. I'm considering this once I get an actual price. We could then go with dimensions of the same height but more "width" to accommodate the largest OLED display for easier readability and more graphical meter capability, still in conjunction with the three "physical" LED back-lit touch buttons. The vertical demarcation would have to be eliminated to fit the large OLED and it's electronics board. The cost difference between the smallest and largest OLED displays is only $20. The largest display is the best bang for the buck, and would get the most visual impact out of the same programming effort.























EDIT - The larger text with the largest OLED makes the functions easier to select. The smallest OLED (post #907) could be a bit tricky.


----------



## BVH

That looks great!!


----------



## London Lad

^ Agreed


----------



## get-lit

So far the touch panel manufacturers are quoting $3000 just for tooling, in addition to minimum or orders of 1000 units. I'm not going to do that. I'm waiting to hear back from two other manufacturers.

Here's the worst case scenario if I have to use the only stocked small touch panel. It's smaller, so I'd have to go with the 2nd largest OLED to fit within the touch panel viewing area with the three buttons. These touch panels cost more since they're made in the US, but at least I wouldn't be forking out around five grand. One thing I do like about these smaller touch panels is it's stronger with a smaller glass surface area. Plus these panels also have strength-treated glass, which the others typically don't.

*Beam Adjust Mode*





(I tried rotating the last icon to make an "M" for Menu)


*Menu*





(SYS = system settings, DISP = display settings)
Separating out the settings pages allows the main menu page to be dedicated to the more frequent operational functions.


*System Settings*





SET TIMERS opens a separate page of functions...

*Timers*






*Display Settings*





"METERS ALWAYS ON" toggles to "METERS MINIMAL" and "METERS OFF"

Meters minimal just shows the meters during special conditions like powerup, probably the best setting for some visual display while preserving OLED life.


----------



## get-lit

with housing..


----------



## BVH

The above still looks good to me. Is the above screen $10 - $25 - $50 each? I have no idea what they cost. But if I do the math on the larger custom developed screen - $3000 tooling, 1000 screens and you don't want "spend the Five Grand" - does that mean the after the tooling expense, the screens are only $2? That doesn't sound remotely possible?


----------



## get-lit

Yes, after tooling, touch panels made in China are around $2 each, but that's after a $3,000 tooling investment and orders of more than 1000. They actually prefer orders of 10k or more. $1 each @ 10k units, but will do as low as 1K for me @$2 each. Still, too much. US made stock units $15 each, but have slightly better clarity, transparency, and strength.

EDIT - this is the cost for just touch panel, this size OLED with display controller board is $55.


----------



## BVH

Ahhhh....touch panel vrs OLED screen. I just thought "touch panel" was what we were calling the screen. Got it now.


----------



## BVH

This thread was getting too low on the HID thread listing


----------



## get-lit

LOL.. The pause doesn't mean nothing is happening. I've discovered something called T-Splines. It's a CAD modeling process that walks all over NURBS. It unleashes unfettered creativity for CAD. I don't know where to begin to explain what this is doing for the project except to say just wait and see what I've come up with. It blows everything I've posted so far completely out of the water. I can hardly contain my excitement. I'm halfway through the process and will be posting an interactive 3D CAD model.

EDIT - In the meantime, I've waiting to hear back from the US manufacturer of touch panels. They show 200 in stock and he's having a count done in the warehouse. It's enough that I don't have to pay for a production run nor tooling.


----------



## Patriot

Looking forward to what you've got cooking Get-lit!


----------



## get-lit

Ok I'm very reluctant to post this as of yet because there's much to be done. The *entire upper "handle" section is **incomplete and there's many final touches, as well as surface transitions to be done*, but this is the direction I'm going with it so far with T-Spline CAD, not shown with bezel...

*Front/Side Perspective** (entire handle section to be cleaned up and handle/display controls created)*





*Rear/Side Perspective** (entire handle section to be cleaned up and handle/display controls created)*





*Top/Side Perspective (entire handle section to be cleaned up and handle/display controls created)*





*Bottom/Side Perspective*






EDIT - This is only a glimpse, the overall look will come together once the handle section is done. When done, all surfaces will be perfect "CLASS A" automotive grade blends. The learning process has been really fun. Transitioning from NURBS to T-Splines makes fluid/organic design easy to do instead of nearly impossible. I've taken in 15 hours of *recorded webinars* over a few days and pretty much got it down.

A primary objective of the entire structure is to reinforce the strength and rigidity of the optics housing. This is done primarily with large wrapping deep sweeps along the housing, and no flat surfaces nor straight lines. The curvy lines might seem to be randomly formed, but they are based entirely off mathematic relationships of the sections they connect.

In the final version, the sides of the bottom lip will also include a curve for this purpose. However, the bottom and back panels will remain flat for sitting and tail-standing positions. The handle will create the 4th and final reinforcement point at the top of the optics housing. The top and bottom optics housing reinforcements (longitudinals) can not include the deep reinforcement recesses like the sides because that would prevent a simple 2-part mold, as the parts would not be extractable from the mold. This enhanced reinforcement structure is not at all required when going with a woven matte composite layup process, but does allow for thinner walls and lighter weight with increased strength and rigidity. This will be one solid piece of kit.


----------



## BVH

That looks pretty "wild" so far and looks really strong! Can't wait to see the addition of the handle, graphics and other goodies!


----------



## TEEJ

Your labor of love looks like its growing into its final form, and, it looks like you are growing even as you nuture your creation.

It reminds me of the way a parent starts the process of raising a child, and the process causes them to grow in ways they had not anticipated.


----------



## get-lit

The ironic thing is the light would have been completed in its initial crude stages if I had the money to do it all at once.


----------



## get-lit

Hey BVH... on the SX-16, can you tell what the thread size is for the gimbal mount on the housing?


----------



## BVH

It's 5/16-24 Nat. Fine.


----------



## get-lit

Below is the link to the full render. It's a 22MB interactive CAD application. Double click the app to see a list of controls. You can zoom/pan/tilt at different angles to get a feel for the design. You can even zoom inside, not that there's much to see in there. All internal components are removed to reduce file size.

Some things to take note of...

1. The back of the optics housing is not yet merged with the OD. I'll do this later, but for now you'll see a sharp edge there.

2. The front exhaust is just a surface for reference, not a complete object.

3. I've added extra grip surface to the bottom side of the handle.

4. I've had to locate the ignitor and DC converter all the way to the back. This slightly lengthens the housing but is necessary to gain more rearward weight for balance. This also allows for better contours in the mid-section of the housing, instead of large squared off surfaces. This also gives room to include an angled rear bottom to match the inclination to the bottom of the optics housing when in the resting position.

5. The electronics are no longer removable through a bottom access panel. The bottom access panel no longer exists. For overall strength, there is only one opening in the entire housing... the front lens. The reflector and electronics slide out through the front once the lens bezel is removed.

6. I have not yet rendered the bezel screws.

7. The housing is a single T-Splines object. Typically, multiple sections of T-Splines objects and NURBS are created and joined together to reduce the workload of creating one T-Splines object that would have to be mathematically coherent as a single object. Creating one object is difficult but I couldn't resist the purist nature of this workflow.

8. I'm open to feedback regarding the flow of the lines in the mid-section. I'm happy with it, but it will likely have to change in order to accommodate the side gimbal mounts.

9. A carbon fiber weave will not flow visually well with the large contours that are needed for strength. I've also been reluctanct to include carbon fiber because it's highly conductive of electricity and I prefer to keep 50Kv as isolated as possible. So I've been considering a gloss black finish. Inside would still be a kevlar fiber/S-Glass fiber layup.

10. Decals are not shown. This verions is a major change and I have yet to reconsider decal placement.

I think that's it for now, *here ya go*


----------



## BVH

Holy Moley, that is quite impressive!! I really like the gloss black. I like the extra grip surface. Will it be rubberized material? Can't wait to see the graphics. It's taken a bit to get used to the mid-section lines but they are growing on me.


----------



## London Lad

That looks amazing. The gloss looks cool but how will it wear in real world use?


----------



## romteb

This whole thread is fantastic.

I have no idea how the internals are arranged, do you have an estimation of where the CG is ?


----------



## get-lit

BVH.. I would like to do rubberized finger grip surface but not sure how to apply it as of yet.

London Lad.. It will have a fairly thick clear coat that can be buffed.

romteb.. what is CG??


----------



## TEEJ

get-lit said:


> BVH.. I would like to do rubberized finger grip surface but not sure how to apply it as of yet.
> 
> London Lad.. It will have a fairly thick clear coat that can be buffed.
> 
> romteb.. what is CG??





My guess:


Its normally COG, center of gravity.


----------



## BVH

I'd guess he means Center of Gravity for gimbal threads.


----------



## romteb

Center of gravity indeed.


----------



## get-lit

duh! I have an estimation but more work to do with this. I have all component weights measured and at this point just need to know the CG of the housing. I'm doing this next via volume functions on the housing wall, and will then come up with CG for locating locate gimbal threads.


----------



## get-lit

I had to upgrade my workstation and monitor to make the T-Splines workflow easier on me. I also had to re-create most of the housing in CAD because there was a glitch from a few badly placed T-Splines Star-Points, a common newb mistake.

Regarding center of gravity... I've generated volumes for all objects and calculated object weights based on the known densities of the materials. I've measured actual weights for completed components. There is a command to determine center of gravity, but only for grouped objects of the same density. So I had to generate an array of object weights and their distances from center, and then create a *Center of Mass Calculator* to determine the net center of gravity for all objects. Center of gravity comes in right at the center of the handle. Total weight 12.5 lbs.


----------



## BVH

That all sounds exceptionally technical and I'm glad you're doing it and not me! IIRC, 12.5 lbs is at or very, very close to the weight of the original Costco HID back from the 2006 era. Similar and made by the same Chinese MFG of the infamous Thors. I still have my Costco's and while they are relatively heavy hand held spots compared to some of the smaller ones, they are certainly very usable in that size and weight.


----------



## get-lit

Good to know, but the weight if that Costco HID includes battery. Figure another 10 to 12 lbs for a backpack type battery for this, unless mains or car/boat powered.


----------



## get-lit

Net weight should be closer to 12 lbs... Rather than encapsulate the ballast, I'll go with what is called a "conformal coating". These coatings have excellent protection without the weight of encapsulation, and are mil spec approved. Also would use with the other components (OLED and controller board etc).

EDIT.. Silicone potting compounds have more protection than conformal coating and still less weight than full encapsulation so I'll probably going this route.


----------



## UNiT5

get-lit, you are a true professor and heading towards the moon not only with your beams, but with your brain power too! Great reading although i'm a newb, i can half the time understand what you're explaining ;P great work and cant wait to see your creation come to fruition.


----------



## The_Driver

get_lit, after you are finished with the design and production, you could write a book on spotlight design with all of your knowledge. There probably wont be many other books on the subject .


----------



## get-lit

Thanks for the support guys!

BVH, what is the mounting means of the SX-16 reflector?


----------



## London Lad

The_Driver said:


> get_lit, after you are finished with the design and production, you could write a book on spotlight design with all of your knowledge. There probably wont be many other books on the subject .



^^^ 100%


----------



## BVH

Not sure exactly what you want to see. Here's some pics of one side of the gimbal mount weldment. Other side is the same except with a metal tab as mechanical stop for the electric motor drive system.













I don't have a gimbal so no pics but go to Ebay, search "spectrolab" and choose "completed listings" to see the one that's been for sale for quite some time.


----------



## get-lit

The_Driver said:


> get_lit, after you are finished with the design and production, you could write a book on spotlight design with all of your knowledge. There probably wont be many other books on the subject .



I've saved everything I could find over the years and was just browsing through thousands of saved documents when looking for the SX-16 reflector mounting, which I also did happen to have from an old patent for the SX-16. When reading through some of the old docs, I had a much better understanding of them than from when I first read them years ago. Some of the most interesting docs include actual formulas for etendue and efficiency based not only on arc gap, luminous area, luminous output, luminous intensity distribution, reflector dimensions, and retro-reflection, but also based on lamp pressure, gas concentrations, and lamp current. Aside from everything I could find regarding searchlights, I have a treasure trove of research docs from everything that went into the development of the P-VIP based lamps. An interesting tidbit was that going from 100 bar lamp pressure to 200 bar increases etendue by 20%, 300 bar by yet another 10% over that.

Today I found for the first time a source for Gorilla Glass and will be inquiring about having it custom cut and A/R coated. This is something I have to sort out before creating the gimbal mount because it affects center of gravity.

I also recently improved the exhaust by reducing the number of components within it to lighten it up and to eliminate an internal cylinder whose wall thickness was partially blocking the light path. You'll see in the render below, the exhaust includes a front lens which allows all of the light from the reflector to pass through the exhaust (minus the wall thickness of the exhaust outer cylinder wall). Allowing that light to pass through the exhaust through the lens allows for 5% additional beam power that would otherwise be blocked by the exhaust. There is also a second one inside the exhaust, and they will have to be tempered and A/R coated as well and I'll be seeking a source for those lenses.

I will also be making a CNC mold for the bezel. Decided to go with a molded composite bezel instead of machined metal to save weight while having more rigidity. Plus a CNC molded bezel just looks bad ***. It will have to be a two-part mold because the back side must be shaped around the lens and EPDM seal.

I'm also finding that I will have to make the rearward most section removable in order to access the internal air filter. It won't be as clean looking as a single-part housing with un-broken curves, but I could make it work.

Also, in this drawing, I have yet to give the curves a final cleanup, and the outer diameter of the optics housing (the section directly behind the bezel) is still being worked on to accommodate securing the removeable reflector assembly apart from the lens assembly. When completed, that outer diameter section will be much less thick. I also toyed with the colors a bit to make it easier to see the curves than with the all black renders...







*Large View (2560x1440)*


----------



## London Lad

Stunning!


----------



## BVH

The exhaust cylinder lens really helps add a refined look to the light and a 5% beam power increase is like icing on the cake!

My thoughts on powering the NightSword:

1. My NightSun battery pack should be able to run the NS powering a 2000 Watt, full sine wave inverter for a little less than 2 hours based on the fact that it will run the 1800 Watt (warmed up) NS for 60 minutes. A quiet and Non-portable solution.
2. I have a new Yamaha 2000 (1600 continuous) Watt inverter generator. A low noise and Non-portable solution.
3. I don't want to "wear" RC-type Lipo packs but am thinking I might build a 132 Volt pack from either RC Lipo-style LiFeP04 packs or some type of LiMn packs - both of which would fit in the pockets of my MegaRay battery holder vest. Chances are, this would be only a 5Ah pack so run time would probably be 20 minutes or less. A quiet and portable solution.


----------



## get-lit

I wouldn't spend a whole lot on the battery because densities are improving, but I believe the Turnigy Nano-Tech batteries can supply a 37 minute run-time with an 8 pound pack.


----------



## BVH

Which specific Turnigy pack/# cells/ Amp hours? Is it Lipo or LiFeP04? That brand is a good, known quality Lipo brand but I want to stay away from that chemistry when wearing them on my person.


----------



## get-lit

The *ones with the 50C current rating* are all that is needed, the higher current packs have less density. These two packs are 50C with highest density:

Turnigy nano-tech 4500mah 10S 25~50C Lipo Pack
SKU: N4500.10S.25

Turnigy nano-tech 5000mah 10S 25~50C Lipo Pack
SKU: N5000.10S.25

The *LiFePo4 packs* have 3/4 the density, not too bad a compromise for the safer chemistry. I would want LiFePo4 for a battery in a backpack, but I'd be completely comfortable with Lipo in a should strap pack and that's probably what I'd opt for. My old Coleman searchlight had a shoulder strap for a sealed lead acid battery which was great for trekking up and down mountains without any fuss.


----------



## get-lit

Need some feedback, regarding the air filter. There's two ways to go about it.. An internal air filter or an external air filter. I've been working with internal air filter, but making the back section removable to access the air filter internally introduces many complexities that may not be worth it.


*The compromises of an internal air filter are...*

1. A removable back section won't look as clean as the single molded housing.

2. A removable back section is not as strong as a single molded housing.

3. A removable back section requires an additional seal, screws, threaded inserts, and support walls that add more weight and complexity.

4. I'm having difficulty locating the rear-mounted DC Converter and Ignitor wires with enough slack to allow removal of the back section. I could consider a plug connector, but again it's more complexity.

5. The back section has to be removed to inspect and clean the air filter. Not a big deal.
*

The benefits of an internal air filter are...*

1. Less exposed opening area for the air intake holes. Because the air filter would not be located at the air intake holes, they can be 1/3 the area with the same air flow. The smaller air intake holes are slightly more resistant to a large splash or dumping of water.

2. Can use super fine pore air filter media for complete dust protection because the filter won't get wet, but in the rare event some water does enter due to flooding the intake by dumping a bucket of water on it, the dry-type air filter will stop the flow of air until it dries.


*
The compromises of an external air filter are...*

1. 3 times the opening area for the air intake holes, slightly less resistant to a large splash or dumping of water.

2. The air filer could be considered an eye sore, but I don't know. This is completely subjective, so I've included drawings with the external air filter below.

3. Have to use a larger pore air filter, with tack oil for dust protection.

4. The air filter itself is larger to allow adequate air flow when soaked with water.


*The benefits of an external air filter are...*

1. Solid 1-piece housing without removable back section looks better.

2. Solid 1-piece housing without removable back section is stronger.

3. Much simpler design and construction, much less complexity.

4. Easier to inspect and clean the air filter.

5. Although a wet-compatible air filter is not as good for fine dust particles, in the rare event some water does enter due to flooding the intake by dumping a bucket of water on it, it will not stop the flow of air.


*
Drawing of external air filter on light-colored housing for illustration...*





*
Drawing of external air filter on black housing...*






EDIT - Note that I did not render the air filter pores, which would be visible. I made no drawing of the internal air filter method.. it's the same except that the air intake holes would be 1/3 the thickness than shown and no visible air filter. The rear section would be a separate bolt-on piece.

As a side note, the exhaust tube is about 1/4" wider in diameter than the last drawing I posted. I made an error when entering the dimensions in that last drawing.

And finally, the length of the intake region of the housing, including the length of the intake holes will be 3/4" shorter than shown (currently 4"L), for both internal and external air filter. I made some optimizations that reduced the overall internal volume requirement, but had not yet updated the CAD model to reflect that.

I really want to like the external air filter because the internal adds so much complexity to the overall design and construction. I'd like feedback/suggestions please.


----------



## BVH

Not having seen the body of the internal model, could it be designed such that only a flat, circular back panel (held in-place with 4-6 screws) need be removed for filter access and the panel could be louvered or hole punched? That way, the body is still one-piece all the way back with enough "return/wrap-around" material on the backside to which the panel fastens?

The external aesthetics looks fine to me. Are the filters just pieces of foam that push in-place into the holes?
Not fond of oiling air filters. Oil vapors/film could find their way onto lamp and reflector?
Without a pic, it's hard to tell but I wouldn't think a circular seam for the removable section would look bad.


----------



## get-lit

BVH said:


> Not having seen the body of the internal model, could it be designed such that only a flat, circular back panel (held in-place with 4-6 screws) need be removed for filter access and the panel could be louvered or hole punched? That way, the body is still one-piece all the way back with enough "return/wrap-around" material on the backside to which the panel fastens?



I had considered that, and now that I look at it again, it could be done if the very back edge of the housing is not rounded. That's not a big deal though because it would just be all the more surface area when tail standing. So yes, this would help with the cosmetic and strength compromises.



BVH said:


> The external aesthetics looks fine to me. Are the filters just pieces of foam that push in-place into the holes?



Yes. They are simply inserted inside beyond all the edges.



BVH said:


> Not fond of oiling air filters. Oil vapors/film could find their way onto lamp and reflector?



It's not that type of oil. It's a thick tack substance made for air filters, like for lawn mowers, trimmers etc. Once applied, it doesn't rub off or anything.

EDIT - I'll work on the method you mentioned, but there's still an issue with the wires. I'll have to look into a connector of some sorts.


----------



## get-lit

I can make a rear-mounted module be removable by making high voltage plugs from automotive type spark plug boots and terminals. There would also have to be a separate ~300v 6-pin connector as well. These could be made as solid connection terminals which disconnect when pulling the module off and re-connect when bolting it back on. But, I'm still not sure this added construction complexity is at all worth it.. the separate removable module, the additional seal, screws & threads, the cavity in the housing for the module, the two high voltage connectors and the 6-pin connector..

I'm wondering really just how much needs to be put into dust protection for this application. Even the Nightsun air filter is not made for fine dust particles whatsoever. It's a very low density pre-filter material for medium size debris and low air flow restriction. There's even a *Nightsun SX-5 service bulletin* instructing operators to remove that filter permanently. I'm not sure if there's any ventilated searchlights that use high density air filters anyhow.

Another consideration with an internal filter is that a low density pre-filter or mesh screen is still needed to keep stones, tree pollen, and snow out (tree pollen and snow would clog the internal air filter).

A low density pre-filter or screen for this purpose would still require enlarged intake holes. The holes would have to be 35% to 50% larger depending on the porosity of pre-filtering.

So now I'm thinking go without an internal air filter and go with just the lower density filter like the Nightsun uses, maybe a bit more dense, with just the 35% to 50% enlarged holes that an internal air filter would need anyhow for a pre-filter. So a single low density filter like the SX-16 would have the same size holes for minimal water splash entry as the internal filter configuration.

I'm just trying to determine what level of filtering is necessary and where it becomes overkill. This will already include mist elimination which not even industrial searchlights nor the Nightsun have, and there may not be a need for more dust filtering in a small portable application. None of the internal components are affected by this. It's generally better to ensure internal resistance to elements rather than trying to keep elements out. In a very high dust operating environment, I'd almost prefer the dust to pass through, rather than have to periodically open up the light to inspect/clean the filter. I'll have to inquire with the lamp manufacturer to determine what level of filtering is really necessary for this application.


----------



## BVH

It certainly does sound like a lot of work for what most other mainstream searchlight mfg's don't pay much attention to. The NightSun filter will certainly catch Pea Gravel  And I, too, saw the service bulletin instructing that the filter be removed permanently. The TrakkaBeam M800 (land based) does not use a filter and pushes a ton of air through its interior. Not sure about the airborn version but I think the housing is interchangeable or very similar. The VSS-3A uses an intercooler system so a filter is not needed. The VSS-1 did too, IIRC. The 600 Watt M-134 Minigun also uses an intercooler. But these needed to be truly waterproof. The Megaray uses a fan cooled heatpipe heatsink so no air movement in the lamp chamber. The Marconi's used an intercooler system.


----------



## get-lit

So a dust-eliminating air filter would probably be overkill for a hand-held searchlight when not one of the larger vehicle-mounted searchlights with through-housing air ventilation use such a filter. Doesn't seem to warrant the added complexity and slight weight penalty.


----------



## get-lit

Problem solved. I came up with a really slick way to include an internal air filter with the solid one-piece housing without requiring the removable module, and also the filter is accessible with a simple quick-release pin, and it's easier to construct, and it's lighter as well. Can have the cake and eat it too lol


----------



## get-lit

I've performed more testing with several prototype intakes and found the air flow rate required for cooling the lamp and ballast is quite a lot for keeping water from being sucked in. Water and mist resistance are based these factors...

1. Air flow rate. The greater, the less resistant.

2. Intake volume (based on diameter and length). The greater, the more resistant.

3. Range of water-resistance orientation angle (full 380 degrees = pointing from up to down, and upside-down all the way to up again). The greater the range, the less resistant.

To maximize the "practicality" of water and mist resistance for a fixed air flow rate to cool the lamp ballast, and a small enough intake volume for a practical portable application, I'll likely go with a configuration that quadruples the water and mist resistance by reducing the range of water-resistance orientation angle to 180 degrees (from straight up to straight down).

The mist eliminator vanes weigh 1/4 pound, still included in the 12.5 lb net system weight.

Also, I've found that the quick-release internal filter configuration I mentioned in the last post precludes the use of the mist eliminator vanes, which are highly beneficial to lamp and reflector longevity in humid, salty environments. So I'll probably use a single external filter to be removed under extreme wet conditions. Heavy rain is fine, it would just need to be removed for things like being attacked by firemen.


----------



## get-lit

In my tests, I've been using a shower head on the intake to simulate rain, but I'm finding that this method has been over-estimating the rate of rain downfall by a long shot. The shower head has been applying 400 inches of water to the housing surface per hour, but torrential downpours are only around 3 inches per hour. That's a huge difference. With that kind of flow, the intake volume can be made smaller, while retaining full 360 degrees weather proof well beyond any real world rainfall rates, and with an external air filter no problem whatsoever.

So there's two choices...

1. Fully weather resistant under full 360-degree orientation, but without direct water pour resistance.

2. Fully weather resistant and direct water pour resistance under 180-degree (up to down) orientation.

For reference, the SX-16 is weather resistant within 180-degree orientation (Horizon to down, to opposite horizon) without direct water pour, so either choice above is an improvement. Either you gain full 360-degree orientation weather proof, or you gain direct water pour under 180-degrees.

Preferences?

EDIT - With choice #1, an outer shield or shroud could be screwed on for adding direct water pour resistance when needed.


----------



## BVH

I won't be using the light under anywhere near the conditions you lay out so either would well suit my "needs". I would think that fully weather resistant and direct water pour under 180 degree (up to down) would be the conditions the light is used under the vast majority of the time so maybe #2.


----------



## get-lit

Thanks for the input. Secondary to weather proofing, I'm mostly concerned with heavy seas use, not necessarily just pouring water from above. For heavy seas use, choice #2 would actually be less capable because it is more susceptible to intake flooding from underneath and heavy seas water tends to splash both upward and downward. *See this video* to see the direction of water spray.

EDIT- #2 can be made to be protected from spray from below so I'll experiment with this.


----------



## get-lit

I built and thoroughly tested the #2 intake. I started with the smallest intake dimensions first, which is 3/4" shorter than the latest renders. I would work my way up in size as needed to suit the amount of protection I wanted to achieve. However, there was no need to increase the size. The test results of the first size was nothing short of a spectacular success. I'm extremely happy! The intake can take the full brunt of the shower head aiming in any direction at it, with the housing pointed in 360 degree range from straight up to straight down. There is a ton of air flow being pulled through a wall of water and none of the water penetrates the intake. It works like a charm. Torrential downpours can't event faze it, and blasts from heavy seas like in the video above would be no problem at all. It can take way more than that. This is fantastic.

It's great to get this part behind me. Instead of building the mist eliminator vanes into the housing, I'll make a mist eliminator to be inserted when needed. That way the 1/4 pound would be saved for the vast majority of use.


----------



## London Lad

I pause a while to consider your questions and by the time I come back to post you have invariably solved them


----------



## get-lit

The latest updates to the intake and exhaust reduce the total weight by about 1/2 lb. I can also reduce the weight of the housing with increased stiffness by going with a sandwich-core Kevlar construction rather than monocoque Kevlar. The increased stiffness will allow me to reduce the thickness of the reflector as well. Total weight should be closer to 10 lbs.


----------



## BVH

WOW! That's a huge decrease!! Just about half the weight of a higher-end laptop. I think that will make a very big difference in using the light.


----------



## Mr. Tone

It is fun and educational to hear you working out the design details in this thread. This will be a great resource for us for years to come, even well after you make available the final night-destroying searchlight(s). :naughty:


----------



## get-lit

Well, for all of you wanting carbon fiber got it now. It turns out the the vacuum infusion process required for the highest strength with lightest weight is not very well compatible with Kevlar because Kevlar does not take to the infusion process well due to it's resin absorption resistance. That leaves fiberlgass and carbon fiber. Fiberglass doesn't really save on cost when you consider the increased thickness required for the same strength and rigidity as carbon fiber, and the increased thickness weighs more as well. I will use a conformal coating on the internal wall surface as an added safety precaution.

The carbon fiber reinforcement layers will be strong, non-cosmetic. I've found a process to make forming of the material along complex curves easier to do, so the external surface can be the actual carbon fiber weave. I'd use an external layer of either a 2x2 3K Twill or a 5HS weave.

*Example of 2x2 3K Twill*
*Another Example of 2x2 3K Twill
Another Example of 2x2 3K Twill

*
*Example of 5HS*
*Another Example of 5HS*
*Another Example of 5HS*


----------



## UNiT5

get-lit;
[URL="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-04muBxdmXZ0/T-hhNWjPkyI/AAAAAAAACF8/LB8zwc02uGk/s720/IMG_0088.JPG" said:


> *Example of 5HS*[/URL] (Rare but considered the best in appearance, but also costs twice as much)
> *Another Example of 5HS*
> *Another Example of 5HS*



to cool for school


----------



## Onestep

How do you plan to protect the epoxy from UV damage? I guess if I comes in a carrying case/bag you would not have any issues with the sun.


----------



## BVH

Unless an owner leaves the light out in the elements during the day, there's not much chance of contact with sunlight.


----------



## get-lit

I'll use a 2K Urethane clear coat. This is what exposed automotive carbon fiber parts use.


----------



## Mr. Tone

Man, this thing is going to look great no matter which carbon fiber type you go with. Those are some nice pics.


----------



## get-lit

Alternative to a woven carbon fiber finish, I could use a chop-stranded carbon fiber finish. This is preferred lately with high end carbon fiber bike parts.

Here's an example...






It's a very fine silvery marbleized finish with tiny highlights at different angles. More of a subtle effect, doesn't have as much depth as a woven pattern. It's just an idea, not set on anything.

Notice how nice the graphics are when embedded into the clear coat in these images.

Most high end bike parts that use a woven finish, do it on just a small area with the rest being either paint or chopped-stranded finish. Here's an example of a part with all three finishes...


----------



## BVH

I'm thinking The weave might get old, fast. I like the above better already.


----------



## get-lit

I see I edited the post after you read it, yet again lol. I'm tending to agree at this point, but will move on to other things while I consider it.


----------



## London Lad

chop-stranded carbon fibre look great in the flesh


----------



## Mr. Tone

I have never seen that type of carbon fiber before, that is pretty cool.


----------



## get-lit

Due to a cancelled contract, an airline manufacturer is "offing" their top aerospace-grade carbon fiber at a ridiculously low price of around 3% of actual cost. It's the actual carbon fiber used on Boeing 747s and other industrial aircraft.
The material and manufacturing process is called Out Of Autoclave (OOA) Prepreg Carbon Fiber. This is as good as it gets in carbon fiber composite manufacturing. The parts would be stronger and about 30% lighter than the carbon fiber vacuum infusion process I had planned, which was already stronger and 50% lighter than the typical carbon fiber wet layup process. OOA Prepreg Carbon Fiber is very expensive, but this deal makes it actually less expensive than the vacuum infusion process I had planned.

It would change the process up a bit. The material self-cures at room temperature, so I would need to get a freezer to store it, and would also need an oven and pressurized mold to properly cure it when making the parts. It's actually a slightly easier process than the already planned vacuum infusion process because there's no mixing and infusing of resins.

But of course as with anything on this project, there is a downside. Because it's strictly a structural material, it is not anything nice to look at and is painted over. This puts us back to a solid gel coat finish. There is a possibility I could still apply the marbled carbon fiber layer as a step before the prepreg process. I'm looking into this now.

EDIT - In the event this new process is not compatible with the marble finish, which would be preferred?

To keep this in perspective, this is not going to make much difference since the carbon fiber vacuum infusion process is already going to make the housing around a pound, which is only 10% of the overall weight of the light.


----------



## BVH

I like the Marble but if it ends up shiny black with your original graphics, I don't have a preference on composition.


----------



## get-lit

I believe I have enough funds to begin production now, but I've been having a difficult time getting back in touch with the touch screen manufacturer to place the order of a few hundred units. I finally reached them and was told their entire stock of touch panels was damaged in a warehouse incident and they are filing an insurance claim. I inquired with dozens of companies and this was the only company that stocked the size (and strength) I need. Non-stocked screens require tooling costs and minimum order quantities of 10,000 which would take me another year to accrue and be a waste of money because I'd never use that many. Unfortunately the warehouse incident also damaged the tooling for the size I need, so this plan is pretty much out the window.

I'm re-contacting a few manufacturers that never got back to the initial inquiry I sent out to all the manufacturers. If I can't come up with anything, I may have to use the linear touch sensor and use a serial port for connecting a separate touch screen when wanting to access special functions, settings, and logs etc.


----------



## BVH

This is very disappointing news! But I must say that you always come back with something better in the end so I'm thinking positively.


----------



## UNiT5

Another year? Stop scaring people get-lit.


----------



## London Lad

get-lit said:


> I believe I have enough funds to begin production now, but I've been having a difficult time getting back in touch with the touch screen manufacturer to place the order of a few hundred units. I finally reached them and was told *their entire stock of touch panels was damaged in a warehouse incident* and they are filing an insurance claim. I inquired with dozens of companies and this was the only company that stocked the size (and strength) I need. Non-stocked screens require tooling costs and minimum order quantities of 10,000 which would take me another year to accrue and be a waste of money because I'd never use that many. Unfortunately* the warehouse incident also damaged the tooling for the size I need*, so this plan is pretty much out the window.
> 
> I'm re-contacting a few manufacturers that never got back to the initial inquiry I sent out to all the manufacturers. If I can't come up with anything, I may have to use the linear touch sensor and use a serial port for connecting a separate touch screen when wanting to access special functions, settings, and logs etc.



Sounds an amazing coincidence? I suspect you would have been waiting for ever for these )-: maybe its a blessing in disguise.


----------



## Onestep

get-lit said:


> In the event this new process is not compatible with the marble finish, which would be preferred?
> 
> To keep this in perspective, this is not going to make much difference since the carbon fiber vacuum infusion process is already going to make the housing around a pound, which is only 10% of the overall weight of the light.



I think this light will be bright enough that no one wil be able to see what color it is, much less if it is a solid color, marble finish, or carbon weave.


----------



## get-lit

London Lad, I think there's more to it as well. When I first contacted the company, I talked to the owner in depth and he wanted to work with me any way they could. Then all of a sudden I could never reach him and he never returned my calls ever since. Then when I finally got through to him last week, he just seemed to want to get off the phone. Seems almost as though he's done with the business and waiting to run off with the insurance check.

Agreed Onestep but it's also good to accommodate the cosmetic preferences of CPF members for the CPF version.


----------



## Mr. Tone

London Lad said:


> Sounds an amazing coincidence? I suspect you would have been waiting for ever for these )-: maybe its a blessing in disguise.



It does seem odd and definitely questionable but not impossible. The insurance company probably smells the possibility of a rat, too, and will send a fraud investigator to have a look at this "incident". Indeed, this is probably a blessing in disguise.


----------



## get-lit

Still no luck on the touch panel. However, another manufacturer did get back to me and has a bit larger panel, but small enough I think, and they are offering to place an order for just 1000 units, still way more than I'd use but affordable. But the glass is not strengthened, so I'm ordering some samples to test them out.

EDIT - How fitting, I can order 1000 units on post 1000.


----------



## Mr. Tone

get-lit said:


> Still no luck on the touch panel. However, another manufacturer did get back to me and has a bit larger panel, but small enough I think, and they are offering to place an order for just 1000 units, still way more than I'd use but affordable. But the glass is not strengthened, so I'm ordering some samples to test them out.
> 
> EDIT - How fitting, I can order 1000 units on post 1000.



If you need to go this route maybe you could sell the extras on ebay or something.


----------



## get-lit

Grr, the "super short" arc lamp version is a no-go, so 100 MCP ain't going to happen. The gap would affect voltage, pressure, and stability. Still in the 60-75MCP range. I'm at least pushing for a marginally smaller gap that would give a 15% boost. Of course a 280W ([email protected]) 1mm gap P-VIP would be in 150 MCP range, but as discussed before, I'm going for beam power... The 75 MCP beam is still 73% more powerful overall than the 150 MCP beam when the 75MCP beam is 3 times the diameter and with 3.6 times the light within it.


----------



## Onestep




----------



## BVH

Can you remind me where this puts the NS as compared to the standard SX-16 with the Enhanced reflector option it comparatively wide 4 degree minimum focus?

I'm not getting what the above pic is about?


----------



## get-lit

It's difficult to quantify exactly because I'm not sure which 1600W lamp the SX-16 uses. Spec sheets for the Enhanced SX-16 says 50 MCP nominal and 40 MCP minimal, but I'm having a difficult time achieving much for it in the beam calculator. The standard SX-16 has 30-40 MCP and the beam calculator puts it at 35 MCP. The only performance difference between the standard SX-16 and the enhanced SX-16 is the higher reflectance reflector which would give it a 20% boost, so the enhanced should really be more like 42 MCP.

The exact power of the Nightsword is also difficult to quantify at this point because I'm not sure if I'll be able to get that 15% gain with a semi-shortened arc or not. Probably will though. I'm also not sure as of yet if I can maximize the reflectance of the retro-reflector without burning up the enhanced coating being so close to the lamp. Also, can I get the lens AR coated for higher light transmittance.

Worst case scenario for the Nightsword would put it at 60MCP and 24269 Net Luminance (Beam Power), versus the best case scenario for the Enhanced SX-16 at 50MCP (doubtful) and 21124 Net Luminance (Beam Power). Still a 15% gain with these extreme scenarios.

Best case scenario for the Nightsword would be if the retro-reflector could sustain an enhanced coating, AR coated lens, and a semi-shortened arc, resulting in 80 MCP and 35626 Net Luminance (Beam Power). In which case, would be a 68% gain in beam power compared to the unlikely best case scenario of the Enhanced SX-16.

* Most probable scenario* would be the Nightsword not having enhanced coating on the retro-reflector, but having AR coated lens, and a semi-shortened arc, resulting in 75 MCP and 32398 Net Luminance (Beam Power), and the Enhanced SX-16 having 42 MCP and 17768 Net Luminance (Beam Power), resulting in an 82% gain for the Nightsword.

If it weren't for the highly optimized optic design of the Nightsword, it would have less power than the SX-16 because the Mercury lamp needed to enable the Nightsword to be portable has less peak luminance within the luminous area than the SX-16 Xenon lamp. If I did not mind the Nightsword weighing at least 40 lbs and consuming a lot more power, I could use a 1600W Xenon lamp and get 140 MCP and 60428 Net Luminance. That's 3.4 times the performance of the Enhanced SX-16 using the same exact lamp resulting solely from the highly optimized optics of the Nightsword. Of course that's not the lamp I'm going with since this is to be a hand-held portable light, so again looking to be more like 75 MCP and 32398 Net Luminance.

EDIT: Keep in mind, the downside of the highly optimized optics is that the hole in the flood mode will be even worse than the SX-16.

Also not sure about the last pic.


----------



## The_Driver

He is probably trying to say that it's still a long way to go before the nightsword is completed.


----------



## BVH

OIC now - "down the road". I didn't have my glasses by the PC so I could not tell the little pic "down the road" was the NS.

Thanks Get Lit for all the very detailed analyses. Very easy to follow as always. All-in-all, a probable 82% gain over the enhanced NightSun is quite fantastic!


----------



## get-lit

Ah Driver, I think you're right.

BTW the enhanced coating on the retro-reflector, AR coated lens, and a semi-shortened arc all do not impact the time on this because they don't affect the design. The one thing holding this up at this point is the touch panel, because I can't have the mold made for the housing until this is finalized. I have sample units on the way but my hopes aren't high for them. Also still awaiting a response from another company that advertises they do have the size and thickness needed.


----------



## Onestep

Oh BVH......

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...ade-in-Japan&p=4387078&viewfull=1#post4387078 POST #17


----------



## Onestep

get-lit please keep up the good fight and keep teaching all of us that you can.

Are you set on having a touch screen for the controls? You could do something really nifty like remote Bluetooth / smartphone controls and monitoring.


----------



## get-lit

Actually Onestep, Bluetooth/Smartphone controls/monitoring is completely possible. There are wireless boards that could be added, but there are only so many "com" pins which limits the number of connectivity interfaces... whether it be touch screen & OLED display, remote serial control, and wireless etc. If a suitable touch panel is not available, I could do wireless but not both.

Funny that pic can be interpreted as either "Down the Road" or "On the Horizon".


----------



## Mr. Tone

^
I like it, you are a glass is half-full kind of guy!


----------



## get-lit

More research is being put into just how short the lamp arc can be. We are now zeroing in on a gap that is shorter than last mentioned. Again the shorter arc requires more amperage. The higher amperage is what causes the lamp to expire faster. The bigger issue here is that as the additional amperage for the shorter arc gap exceeds what the matching ballast is capable of providing, undercurrent occurs resulting in improper internal pressure and stability.

However, the ballast has reserve amperage to assist in speeding up the power ramp-up when igniting the lamp. If the arc is made to match that reserve amperage for use under full power, the system will be fully optimized for maximum capability. I'm having two test lamps made which will then be tested to achieve the maximum current while lasting at least 200 hours. Probably will be in the ballpark of 500 hours.

As of now, all with enhanced primary reflector:

Standard Lamp with AR Coated lens: 65 MCP and 27612 NL (net luminance)

New Short arc Lamp with AR Coated lens: 86 MCP and 36393 NL

New Short arc Lamp with AR Coated lens and enhanced retro-reflector: 91 MCP 39437 NL


----------



## BVH

When you talk about "lamp life", does this mean to a point where lamp output is 80% of what is was when new? Or does the lamp have to be replaced at this time on the clock? If the latter, how much output is taking place at the time of replacement? Is there a scale of decreasing performance?

If you require the ballast to output its' "boost" current full-time, how will that affect heat and life of the ballast?

I really, really enjoy this technical talk!!

Those numbers look really impressive.


----------



## get-lit

End of lamp life in this case is 50% reduction in output or 50% failure to ignite.

50% reduction in output is when the deposits from electrode erosion attach to the envelope and block luminance by 50%.

50% failure to ignite is typically when the electrodes have eroded too far apart to sustain an arc upon ignition. This will not likely be the end of lamp life case for a shortened arc gap because it begins at an already shorter arc distance. As a result, 50% reduction in output would more likely be reached before the electrodes erode to the point of 50% failure to ignite.

No, no affect on the ballast. It's not a "boost" current, it's a fully usable "reserve" current. Like having a reserve gas tank, it never hurts to put it to use.


----------



## BVH

OK, good lamp life info. So if it ends up rated for 300 hours, it is a fair guess to say that it will be outputting 75% at 150 hours. Is it linear?


----------



## get-lit

Probably will be rated at 500 hours, and yes linear output reduction.


----------



## BVH

So about 10% reduction per 100 hours. I think that's reasonable for this powerhouse of a light. If you're willing to buy the light, you should be willing to buy lamps to keep it in top performance. And for many of us, usage won't be huge so lamps won't be that big of an expense.


----------



## get-lit

Plus there's always the 1000 hour lamp for the more practical applications.


----------



## matt304

The cloud photos do look strange. Clouds are not dense "walls" to stop light. The hotspot is usually not one similar to a laser on a wall in a photo. Just saying. It's usually a brighter white, but at such distance, it wouldn't be a camera blinding spot on a cloud in any camera I've seen.

What I am curious about really, is what light body did you use to create a chassis for the prototype host in the beginning to hold everything in alignment to get the beam shots? ...The pictures of the prototype light that threw the original beam?


----------



## get-lit

Great observations and questions...

The last set of beamshots were in the city of Amherst, NY, and the clouds had an orange glow to them from the city lights. The first beamshots in this thread were in Lockport, NY, a small town away from the big city. So the clouds were only partially illuminated by the white moon light.

The camera was on a tripod mounted 100 feet from the vertical beam. When gazing at the beam in the clouds, you are pretty much directly under the beam even when you're 100 feet from it. As such, all of the reflections of the beam upon the various layers of cloud depths appear a single spot like on a wall. If you drive down the road away from the light, you begin to see the beam through the clouds at more of an angle, at which point the length of the beam through the clouds is seen with various intensities through the various densities of the cloud layers.


----------



## get-lit

A good example of the spot vs density layering is in the NYC Tribute in Light. From directly underneath...





http://photo.mish.net/2006/09/wtc-tribute-in-light-1.php

From the side...




https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...363.-2207520000.1393574689.&type=3&permPage=1


----------



## get-lit

Good news regarding touch panels. Another company has responded and they already have tooling for the ideal size I need size. Minimum order quantity is 2000 units but price is great. Waiting to hear back to see if they can make them with thicker glass or hardened glass treatment.


----------



## Mr. Tone

Those are some serious beamshots, get-lit. oo: Any idea how many beams are in those?


----------



## Onestep

get-lit said:


> Probably will be rated at 500 hours, and yes linear output reduction.



Wouldn't the erosion and deposits be highly variable with usage habits? Short run times vs. prolonged runs, and or temperature variations?


----------



## get-lit

Yes I forgot about that Onestep. I will have to find out the cycle time for determining the lamp life here. For instance, if the cycle time is 2 hours, it would mean the lamp life is 1000 hours including 500 ignitions, and each additional ignition beyond 500 ignitions would reduce lamp life below 1000 hours by a certain amount of time. I will look into this and can make the controller calculate remaining lamp life based on the recorded runtime and ignitions for a lamp. Temperature will not fluctuate because the fan will maintain constant temp with a closed loop control using a single air flow-meter/temp combo sensor. The only remaining factor is if the user does not align the retro-reflector and it happens to be reflecting the light back onto one of the electrodes. If it were redirecting the light directly onto one of the electrodes, lamp life would probably be reduced by 25%. This is something I will have to test "down the road".


----------



## matt304

So anyways, you gave an explanation as to the layering of atmosphere from angle of the observer in great detail, which can explain a general "spot", but then you just post more photos of other people's beamshots. Which, who know's the circumstances of those photos and their relevance?

Where are the photos of your prototype light, that made the beam shots? I guess it's strange that there are plenty of beamshots, but I didn't see a single prototype light built anywhere. Where is the prototype light at? Are you possibly making this into a pipe dream? Wireless control, bluetooth, touch panels? You have CAD drawings so far that can't be produced because of your funds, what kind of person would keep adding things that ensure they never actually produce, well, anything besides CAD drawings? You need a working light. You don't need biometric fingerprint encryption and remote access from a VLAN to throw lumens. If it's a project, you move in steps to build, not merely steps to imagine more things you wish you could build but know are far too expensive to ever do. Sorry, I'm just seeing 35 pages of a project that is no more than a dream. You can't seem to hold yourself still and make something, it's always a new idea, but no progress. I have to play devils advocate, because sometimes you may need to check yourself, ask, are you really developing anything at all, or just adding complex ideas to barrier your production entirely? Carbon fiber molding...I used to mold carbon rocket parts for large motor rockets--you producing that bike crank is most likely out of your production abilities. If I were you, I would analyze immediately what you can't do now, say hey, I realized I took this idea too far, and change the design to be building this light out of steps of milled aluminum at 1/10 the price, if you can't produce a carbon example product this far (years) into your journeys.

My half a penny, take a project in steps that actually get completed.


----------



## get-lit

Most your questions are answered in the thread but I'll do my best to help here..



matt304 said:


> So anyways, you gave an explanation as to the layering of atmosphere from angle of the observer in great detail, which can explain a general "spot", but then you just post more photos of other people's beamshots. Which, who know's the circumstances of those photos and their relevance?



I did not say nor imply the intensity of the light in this project is like those shots. I could have chosen any beam to illustrate the difference in seeing the beam in the clouds from straight underneath and from the side, but I chose those beams because it is the Tribute in Light at WTC in NYC. Being the most well known light display in the world, it is the easiest for most other people to relate to. I also did not "just" post the beams to illustrate the answer to what you were asking, I also thoroughly explained it as well. I actually did not need to post any beams with the explanation. I did it for you to see the for yourself the affect. Since you are unable to see this common phenomenon first hand, the sole relevance of the beam pics here is to show you the effect in pictures. For the purpose of helping you to see the difference in viewing a beam in the clouds from underneath versus from the side, I actually did not even need to use a searchlight beam. I could have used a laser beam through fog to show you the effect. From straight on, you see a single spot, while from the side you see layered intensity variation as the laser impinges the various layers of fog intensities. There is no relevance in the photos beyond the illustration of this phenomenon.



matt304 said:


> Where are the photos of your prototype light, that made the beam shots?



Didn't take any.




matt304 said:


> I guess it's strange that there are plenty of beamshots, but I didn't see a single prototype light built anywhere.



I explained this in the thread.. there are various prototypes for testing and optimizing the different functions. One for testing and optimizing the actual light output characteristics, several for testing and optimizing the cooling air flow and pressure characteristics, several for testing and optimizing the air/water separation characteristics, two for testing head wind pressure characteristics, several for testing and optimizing the alignment assembly, and probably some others hanging around. There is a lot of discussion regarding many of these assemblies in this thread. I also had posted some photos of some test assemblies for the more visually oriented here to see.




matt304 said:


> Where is the prototype light at?



Most assemblies are in the downstairs workshop, some are in the garage, some things are even in my bedroom.




matt304 said:


> Are you possibly making this into a pipe dream? Wireless control, bluetooth, touch panels?



As discussed much in the thread, the last thing I want is for this to be said and done, final costs invested, everything made, assembled lights shipped out, and then come to find it could have been better. I can understand that these features you mention may seem daunting, but these are not difficult for me as a programmer. As with every aspect of the light, I want to get the most out of each component, including the controller board's expandability. As just recently stated, I will not be including all of these three features you ask about, just one of them. Touch panel is the one feature of the three I'm working on because I feel it is the most useful for this application. The other two were options in case I were unable to source the touch panels at a cost that wouldn't much affect affording the completion of the project. I only have so much to spend on this each quarter, and if I could not find a touch panel manufacturer that will allow me to make a purchase of under 5k, I would opt for wireless as a supplemental control feature. As of now, I am making the best progress over the past few days with a new touch panel manufacturer than I have since my initial inquiry to a few dozen manufacturers. Once this is squared away, supplemental control features can be handled through the touch panel, or switched over to remote control via serial connection just as other remote controllable searchlights.



matt304 said:


> You have CAD drawings so far that can't be produced because of your funds, what kind of person would keep adding things that ensure they never actually produce, well, anything besides CAD drawings?



This is a multi-part question. Also as just recently stated in this thread, I now have funds for completion but am on my last bit of patience in seeking a dependable and affordable touch panel source. I have two panels coming in the mail for testing which I do not expect to work out well for this, and I am working with another manufacturer for something I do expect to work perfect for this. Again these are my last resorts in sourcing touch panels, and if both of these opportunities do not pan out, I will then scrap the touch panel, go with wireless or strictly serial for supplemental control, rebuild the housing in CAD without the touch panel and have the molds made. After the last few hiccups with touch panel manufacturers, I've had to regain my patience for a last ditch effort because I really prefer to not have to go back and rebuild the housing in CAD to make it something less than I had already planned for.

As far as what kind of person does this, well I'm not a psychologist or mental health "expert". To be completely honest I don't give two squats what kind of person does anything they do, nor why they do what they do. As far as I'm concerned, people will do what they will do and I don't care to analyze it or even judge them. I'm also not much interested in meeting any expected social norms, especially considering how quickly today's norms change.

I'm not going to dig into this too deeply but I actually don't think I've actually added much that would delay the project as a result of lack of funding. Much of the time invested was in experimentation, and the design changes resulting from that experimentation. Thus far, the delays due to lack of funding were the result of necessary costs not associated with new features. This is all outlined in the thread. It is many times more expensive to design something to be produced rather than a one off. It also takes all the more work to plan properly for. There's also more involved in the process when it's to be easily worked on beyond initial assembly, and to adopt modern design and construction standards. All of this I had to learn along the way. Even if you really wanted to figure out what kind of person does this, I would have to say a most reasonable person would.




matt304 said:


> You need a working light.



No. I need working functional prototypes (done), and a fully defined functional plan of assembly (done).




matt304 said:


> You don't need biometric fingerprint encryption and remote access from a VLAN to throw lumens.



I'm surprised you would think I believe these things are necessary to produce throw. Trust me, I know exactly what it take to produce throw. You need to understand, this project is a collaboration of ideas from many different people. There is absolutely no harm in considering the ideas proposed by others. The only harm in is offending them by shooting them down for their ideas. As far as biometric, I'm not sure how much, if at all, we may have considered biometric. Maybe it was just mentioned when we were assessing an access control feature for safety. Access control is imperative. Children are curious, especially about something new and different, and they will find a way to get their grubs on it behind your back. And they will hurt themselves, likely permanently. Not on my watch. Also not sure how much, if at all, we may have considered VLAN. I'm fairly certain it was never more than a fleeting thought for me along the way. Serial accomplishes the same thing in a much more universal form.




matt304 said:


> If it's a project, you move in steps to build, not merely steps to imagine more things you wish you could build but know are far too expensive to ever do.



Again, the features have not added much to expense, definitely not to the point of delaying the project due to expense. *A significant consideration is that since the major components cost thousands of dollars, why not take the effort to include features that best take advantage of those costly components while not significantly adding to the cost.* This also was explained in the thread.




matt304 said:


> Sorry, I'm just seeing 35 pages of a project that is no more than a dream.



You need to read the thread, and you will see much more than just 35 pages. Most applicable to your concern this may be nothing more than a dream, are the particular discussions within the thread regarding the steps taken to identify issues and how to best address them. If you were to read from beginning to end, you will see an ongoing progression through the issues with unwavering perseverance toward the end goal.




matt304 said:


> You can't seem to hold yourself still and make something, it's always a new idea, but no progress.



No progress? No offense by this, but you've just pulled off the single most ignorant statement in this entire thread.




matt304 said:


> I have to play devils advocate, because sometimes you may need to check yourself, ask, are you really developing anything at all, or just adding complex ideas to barrier your production entirely?



What may seem overly complex to you thus far is surely not for me. You're making the mistake of assuming that if something seems too difficult for you, it is too difficult for anyone. For me, it has not even yet gotten past fun.




matt304 said:


> Carbon fiber molding...I used to mold carbon rocket parts for large motor rockets--you producing that bike crank is most likely out of your production abilities. If I were you, I would analyze immediately what you can't do now, say hey, I realized I took this idea too far, and change the design to be building this light out of steps of milled aluminum at 1/10 the price, if you can't produce a carbon example product this far (years) into your journeys.



Composites had not held up the project, they helped move it along by a long shot. If you read the thread, you will see that I consider metal housings too dangerous to hold in the hand with 35KV ignition inside. The alternative to a metal housing is plastics. And I can't use thermoplastics because of the heat in the optics housing. I'm also not venturing into injection molding. Not because it's "too complicated" for my meager self, but because it's not cost effective for a production run that would suit this project. Composite laminates are simply the best solution for a number of reasons. First off, they are by far the strongest while being the lightest weight and most durable. They are electrically isolating. Composite laminates are also the most cost effective manufacturing method for production runs on the order of this project. About all of this is covered in the thread. I actually can't think of anything mentioned here that hadn't already been discussed at least once before.

All of the prior years working on this project were primarily involved in learning and pioneering on my own without having the information available to me anywhere. Only relatively recently in the long timeline had construction been worked on, and it's moved along much more quickly than the research and experimentation phases.

*Edit - Don't forget I'm making a light that's more powerful than Spectrolab's $25K Nightsun Enhanced SX-16 for a fraction of the cost, in a much more convenient and easy to use hand-held form, with much more weather resistance, 1/6 the weight, consuming half the power, and without having the entire engineering and manufacturing staff and facilities of Boeing.*


----------



## Mr. Tone

Just to be clear, I have personally enjoyed this thread and have learned much from it, get-lit. I believe in getting something right the first time and I believe that is what you are doing here and you have included CPF in the process. There are so many variables here that affect one other, nothing is in a vacuum or isolated here. Once you change just one design element, that throws another problem or problems to solve and so on and so forth. Some things in life just take more time than others. This project is complex and the very small details matter. Anyway, keep up the good work.


----------



## UNiT5

Keep up the excellent work get-lit.


----------



## get-lit

Thanks, I can't be stopped lol


----------



## Ceya!

Somebody has to dream sometimes, shoot the Everly Bros even made a song about it.

Get Lit,

Keep dreaming , its good sometimes to put dreams to paper and brainstorm to reality.

China still does Carbon molding on the cheap.

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## get-lit

That's just the point - it's no longer a dream at all, stopped being a dream after the very first beamshot.

I received the pair of sample touch panels from the first of two prospective companies. It's a bit larger than I'd like, but much stronger than I expected for being thin and un-strengthened glass. I managed to break one by applying a mighty amount of force with my thumb. It could do. Still, the other samples coming are the ideal size and 50% thicker as well as being strengthened glass. It will be more durable as a result of the smaller dimensions and thicker glass, and the strengthening makes it 5 times stronger alone. If the ones I have are difficult to break, these next ones should be virtually unbreakable. Minimum order quantity is 2,000 for the ideal ones and I expect to nab them up once I receive the samples.

Selecting connectors for the various components is an unexpected challenge. Among the ballast, DC encoder motor, OLED display, and touch panel, there's 6 specialized connectors that have been very difficult to locate the exact matching connectors. Have to know the connector manufacturer and search through their catalogs of thousands of connectors, and then have to buy them each in bulk.

On a side note, today I realized a method to eliminate 90% of the flood hole making virtually undetectable, but unfortunately that method is not compatible with a retro-reflector, so it's not worth it for this application.


----------



## get-lit

Recap... since the costs of the choices made along the way have come into to question, I should review them all so that it's understood why I've opted for them. At issue are the features beyond what may be necessary to produce the light.

*DC Encoder Focus Motor*
This could be accomplished with a standard DC motor. The Encoder version was chosen to actually simplify the system rather than complicate it. By having Focus position feedback via digital encoder, end-stop positions are electronically determined and no longer have to be accomplished with physically adjustable end-stop components. This greatly simplifies the construction of each light. This is reason enough to justify the use of the encoder. Added benefits include the ability to go to exact focus positions, and much easier focus end-stop adjustment. It also greatly increases motor life because the motor never experiences stoppage at physical end stops.

*Retro-Reflector*
This is also not necessary but testing has shown for it to improve performance by 40%. This kind of percentage is most definitely worth the effort and cost to implement.

*Closed Loop PID Fan*
This is absolutely not necessary for Xenon lamps. It is also not necessary for Mercury lamps when the cooling air flows perpendicular to the lamp as intended for Mercury lamps. However, as testing revealed axial orientation produced significantly better performance than perpendicular orientation, critical cooling conditions need to be maintained for the lamp in axial orientation in order to adequately cool the lamp while also not over-cooling the lamp. Closed loop PID maintains the required cooling condition while taking into account air flow restriction due to changes in head wind pressure, air flow restriction due to air filter dust accumulation, air flow variance due to variance in fan performance, and changes in incoming air temperature. Also, a determined minimum air flow must be maintained in order to cool the retro reflector as it will not last ten seconds in the event of the mentioned air flow restrictions.
*
Enhanced Reflector Coatings*
These generally improve performance by 25%. Again, this kind of percentage is worth the effort and cost to implement.

*A/R Coated Lens*
These lenses generally improve performance by at least 10%. While these many not be worth the cost to implement for low power lights like EDC lights, it is worth the effort here because another 10% equals another 4,700 lumen in the actual beam.

*Controller Board*
Not necessary for typical scenarios, but required for the closed loop PID fan to enable the greater performance of axial orientation of Mercury lamps. Also necessary for the DC encoder focus motor to simply the alignment assembly construction by eliminating physical the end-top adjustment components, and providing for it's added previously mentioned benefits.
*
Touch Screen*
This is also not necessary. However it is actually much less costly than the alternatives. Waterproof buttons to serve the functions of power, strobe, low power, and a waterproof 2-way focus adjust toggle all come to around $45. They are also heavy as well as too bulky to all fit atop the handle to be controlled under the thumb. A cleaner solution is a waterproof 5-way toggle which costs over $100. On the other hand, a touch screen assembly costs around ten bucks when all said and done. Of course there is the minimum order quantity issue which drives cost up, but it's still much less expensive than implementing a waterproof 5-way toggle. Aside from cost savings and added durability, it consumes several less com pins on the controller board than physical buttons, allowing for additional expandability if desired or if needed. The touch screen can also optionally accommodate the use of a digital display for viewing system checks, logs, and updating system settings. Being able to see where to press in the dark with illuminated buttons also helps.

*Digital Display*
This is the least required feature and also the most costly non-performance feature, but offers worthwhile benefits for around $60. Since these do not have to be purchased in bulk, implementing this will not significantly add to production cost in a manner which would delay production. How worthwhile for around $60 is questionable for a run of the mill light, but for a light comprised of fixed component costs in the thousands, another $60 is not a huge hit relative to those fixed costs. It's less than a 2% difference. I've chosen to include this because I personally feel the cost is worth it, especially since the CPF version is to be something special.

*Ventilation Ducting*
Again, not necessary but this greatly improves the versatility of the light by allowing it to be used in any weather condition as well as for marine use in heavy water conditions. It does not significantly add to construction cost and is worthwhile because it makes the light much more versatile than any other forced air ventilated light there is. It also preserves the reflectors by eliminating weather-inducing wear.
*
RS-232 Serial Control*
Definitely not necessary, but since this is fairly common among the better searchlights and costs little to implement, why not include it to accommodate any and all situations.

*Dual Stage High Power Fan*
Also not necessary, but it is necessary to greatly increase versatility by allowing the light to be used in significant head winds as well off road and marine use. The fan is still much less expensive than the fan used in the Nightsun SX-16, so there's no reason to not include it for the greatly increased versatility it provides here.

*EPDM Bezel Seal*
Again not necessary for a run of the mill light, but a seal is necessary for a weatherproof light and EPDM lasts at least 10 times longer than standard rubber without deterioration due to UV and ozone from the lamp and costs only marginally more when comparing both as custom cut.

*Optical Grade Reflector*
I've tested several grades of reflectors and the performance benefit of optical grade reflectors is very clear. There is a reason all searchlights use them.
*
Mil-Spec Cable Gland and Power Connector*
Mil-spec components in general are double the cost, but in the case of cable glands and power connectors, they are only about 25% more. This is a very small price to pay for the most reliable watertight seals and for repeated usage in all conditions.

*Gimbal Mounts*
This is definitely a light that would benefit most with the ability to gimbal or stand mount the light, and threaded inserts only costs few bucks each so why not.

So what's the bottom line... the net cost of these chosen features, aside from the performance enhancing features and the digital display, ends up breaking even compared to without any of them, because as a whole they are on par with the components they replace.

EDIT - It's understandable that this could be confusing at first, especially since there's so much to take in with this whole dang thread, and there's also some things I'm keeping close to the chest as well which doesn't help.


----------



## BVH

Quite simply, I wouldn't change anything you've settled upon if I were building this.


----------



## Onestep

Don't forget the iridium plated housing and the 365/24/7 get-lit personal onsite tech support costs.


----------



## get-lit

BVH said:


> Quite simply, I wouldn't change anything you've settled upon if I were building this.



Ok it's good to confirm all this before laying down the money.



Onestep said:


> Don't forget the iridium plated housing and the 365/24/7 get-lit personal onsite tech support costs.



No I only use iridium on my sunglasses 


I'm really pushing for the enhanced coating to also be usable on the retro-reflector. I going to have one made with the coating to test with. Chances are it will burn up, but I should be able to enlarge the retro-reflector with the new mandrel to keep the reflector surface further from the lamp to accommodate the coating.


----------



## BVH

It's all about the power of the beam and spot! More is better!


----------



## UNiT5

BVH said:


> It's all about the power of the beam and spot! More is better!



i'd love to see a retro reflector with long FL setup...

Any shed some links i can see what it looks like ? :thinking:


----------



## get-lit

If your asking about what the beam looks like, the beam pattern will be the same as the 2nd pic *here*. That was taken without the retro-reflector, the beam will be about 40% brighter than that with the retro-reflector.

If you're asking about the optics, the setup is just like the *AN/VSS-1 tank light*.

In a nutshell, the long FL gives a powerful beam because it places the lamp further from the reflector which produces more throw. But being further from the reflector also means less light from the lamp hits the reflector. What the retro-reflector does is recoups that lost light with a spherical reflector which reflects that lost light back to lamp source but in the other direction toward the reflector surface.


----------



## sven_m

get-lit said:


> In a nutshell, the long FL gives a powerful beam because it places the lamp further from the reflector which produces more throw.



With "throw" you mean sort of practical usability here, not the max lux in the center of the spot, right?


----------



## get-lit

Actually, a short FL could potentially produce a higher "peak luminance", but only within the very center of the beam. A long FL produces higher "net luminance", even with slightly less "peak luminance", which makes for a more visible beam overall because nearly all light within its beam is at its peak luminance, rather than just the small amount of light at the very center. I consider "net luminance" to be the true measure of a beam's power.

*Here* is an outline of why this occurs.

Edit - Note that these comparisons are without a retro-reflector. A long FL with retro-reflector will produce both higher "peak luminance" and "net luminance" than a short FL.


----------



## sven_m

get-lit said:


> Actually, a short FL could potentially produce a higher "peak luminance", but only within the very center of the beam. A long FL produces higher "net luminance", even with slightly less "peak luminance", which makes for a more visible beam overall because nearly all light within its beam is at its peak luminance, rather than just the small amount of light at the very center. I consider "net luminance" to be the true measure of a beam's power.
> 
> *Here* is an outline of why this occurs.



(I guess you mean "peak illuminance".)

How strange, although I do know the linked pictures well, I never noticed that peak illuminance is not the same.

Is this difference mainly a result of your calculation or can you give an explanation?
Is it some practical side effect which I'm currently not thinking of, or does it even conflict with the idea that peak illuminance
is only determined by luminance which remains constant (conservation of etendue), apparent reflector disk area, and losses (absorption, scatter)?
[edit: given that the reflector is good enough to show peak luminance over its entire apparent area, which can be tough for small luminance hot spots]


----------



## get-lit

sven_m said:


> (I guess you mean "peak illuminance".)



Yes, however it could be described as illuminance as it relates to the intensity at a given distance (Lux), or it could also be described as luminous intensity as it relates to the intensity within an angle of the beam (candlepower or candela).

But to help clarify what your really asking, imagine two very different unrelated beams... one that projects 100 Lux within an area of one square meter at 1 km, and another that projects 75 Lux within an area of 4 square meters at 1 km. The first one is brighter within the small area it's projecting within, but the second one is more visible overall because four 75 MCP lights is more visible overall than one 100 MCP light.

What's key here is that even though the 75 Lux by 4 square meter beam is only 3/4 the illuminance of the 100 Lux by 1 square meter beam, *the 75 Lux by 4 square meter beam illuminates double the atmosphere thickness of the 100 Lux by 1 square meter beam*. Viewing the beams from the side, the 75 Lux by 4 square meter beam has *3 times the atmospheric illuminance* of the 100 Lux by 1 square meter beam.

That's what I mean when I always say candlepower isn't everything. "*Net Illuminance*" is really what determines how bright the beam is.

By the way, these MCP values are off a bit because 1 Candlepower actually equals 0.981 Candela. Incidentally, I just realized all of my MCP values given thus far have been off by almost 2% because I hadn't taken this factor into consideration.


----------



## TEEJ

I just felt compelled to point out that to me, this thread is a diary of PROGRESS, not documentation of a lack of progress.

You have repeatedly worked to perfect your light, and to over come obstacles that arose as you worked through that process.

If I were an employer looking for an engineer to develop a product, this thread should be on the engineer's resume.


----------



## sven_m

get-lit said:


> That's what I mean when I always say candlepower isn't everything. "*Net Illuminance*" is really what determines how bright the beam is.



That was not my question. I wanted to know why the very "peak illuminance" differs in your opinion.

I've looked again and now I noticed that not only the focal length is different but the lamps are, too!
So I wonder if the linked pictures/calculations help here. Back to my original question:



get-lit said:


> Actually, a short FL could potentially produce a higher "peak luminance", but only within the very center of the beam.



Why is *that*?

Perhaps the two calculations here (#221) better match this question?
(because they show: same light source, aperture and vertex diameter. but different focal length -> why different peak illuminance?)


----------



## get-lit

Thank you TEEJ, I definitely tried but was unable to find anything in those last criticisms that could be used to improve this, or even anything that was correct.

Sven, your basic question is what makes the different focal lengths create different beam profiles.

It's explained *here*, but here is a more thorough explanation...

Collimation (the degree to which the photons project in the same direction) determines throw. There are two fundamental geometric components that determine collimation: the size of the source and the distance of the source from the reflector surface. To clean this up, I'll refer to that distance as STRD (Source to Reflection Distance). Smaller source size and greater STRD produce greater collimation. Refer to this most basic illustration...







The beam is a distant reflected "Image" of the "Source" (RED), enlarged at distance based on STRD. The greater the source size and the smaller the STRD, the less collimation occurs and the greater the reflected image size.

The larger image (BLUE outlines) is the result of the shorter STRD.

The smaller image (YELLOW outlines) is the result of the longer STRD.

It's a direct relation...

Double the source size equals double the image size, half the throw, and 1/4 the image intensity.

Double the STRD equals half the image size, double the throw, and quadruple the image intensity.

Likewise, double the source intensity equals double the image intensity.

The final beam is a combination of all images generated from all reflections over the reflector surface.

*As this illustration is a short focal length reflector, there is much STRD variance, generating a beam of much image size variance. Hence a small central spot and a large dim corona. The bright central spot is the result of the very large STRD from the source to the very front of the aperture. Although that large distance has great collimation, only a relatively small percentage of the source light actually hits that region of the reflector. The majority of source light has a very short STRD which has very little collimation, making for a very large dim corona.

On the other hand, a long focal length reflector has much more uniform STRD over it's reflection surface, generating a beam of much more uniform size. There is less centralized intensity but less light wasted as large dim corona*.

That's it in a nutshell.

On a side note, there are several other geometric factors occurring which I calculate...

-The intensity of the source is not uniform across all emittance angles. An angular intensity profile is measured and mapped for each source.

-Since the source is not perfectly spherical, the size of the facing area of the source changes at every reflection angle. For HID lights, the beam calculator uses a formula for calculating the angular facing area of an ellipsoid defined by the source width and height.

-The "Image" distance is resolved as from the aperture rather than the source.

-The aperture diameter at each reflection point has a geometric affect on the image.

-Focus offset for flood.

-Vertex hole diameter

Here is a diagram of all of the full geometry calculated for just one reflection point with offset focus:




As you can see, it takes several geometric functions and laws to evaluate for just one reflection point on the surface of the reflector. This has to be done across the entire surface of the reflector. And this diagram is without a retro-reflector. Of course there are also non-geometric factors calculated including source lumen output, reflector reflectance, and lens transmittance.

EDIT - I forgot to mention something I discovered a few days back that others might find fun.. due to the beam uniformity as a result of uniform STRD, and the direction of focus offset, a metal cutout "light shield" could be used for the Nightsword to project an image like the batman logo in the clouds by slightly defocusing the beam. I thought this would be fun.


----------



## sven_m

get-lit said:


> Sven, your basic question is what makes the different focal lengths create different beam profiles.



Is it? Please don't think that I might underestimate the importance of the beam profile.
But here I'm interested in a special, yet fundamental point. I can't imagine yet, how peak illuminance might depend on focal length.

Thanks for the detailed explanation, especially about some of the background how your calculator works.

I'm afraid I don't get the connection of "STRD" to peak illuminance, yet.
But the following made me listen up:



> The intensity of the source is not uniform across all emittance angles. An angular intensity profile is measured and mapped for each source.



Do you have a uniform source available for your calculator? (the listed sources don't seem to be)
And could you please run once with such a uniform source and different focal lengths?

Sure, this might perhaps not be realistic for any HID. But LEDs w/o dome might get pretty near to ideal here
(although only in one half-space, certainly)


----------



## get-lit

I just bolded what you need to understand in order to see the answer to what you're asking.

EDIT - LEDS are not any more uniform in angular intensity than HID. For example, see the first diagram on page 7 of the Cree XM-L2 *data sheet*. Additionally, the LED emittance surface is a half ellipsoidal shape, but the calculator calculates for full ellipsoidal only. As mentioned before, it would take a lot of work to arrive at the formulas to calculate this and I'm not interested in LED.


----------



## sven_m

get-lit said:


> I just bolded what you need to understand in order to see the answer to what you're asking.



Sorry, I don't see how it explains peak illuminance. The STRD effect still could perfectly balance for the target illuminance at a very point.
that is, these effects from your quote might just balance:
"large STRD distance: great collimation, small percentage of source light hits reflector"
"small STRD distance: little collimation, large percentage of source light hits reflector"

I am not talking about the whole beam profile here, or "net illuminance", or how bright the beam as whole appears.
Please note I am completely with you about the effect of focal length on the beam profile. But not peak illuminance.
I'm curious if you believe peak illuminance dependency from focal length can only be determined by such an overall calculation
or if it even can be really understood.

Why am I asking this and probably bothering you (I hope not)?
As I understand it, peak luminance must *not* depend on focal length for a source with constant luminance.
And if you _don't have a beam calculator available_, this becomes a pretty fundamental question for calculating
max lux of a thrower, and thus can be helpful for rough estimations.



> EDIT - LEDS are not any more uniform in angular intensity than HID. For example, see the first diagram on page 7 of the Cree XM-L2 *data sheet*.



Oh, I meant uniform, constant luminance of the source. The effect that luminance doesn't depend on the angle
you look at an LED without dome. But perhaps that was a misleading comparison. Let's forget about the LED.

Do you have a source with constant luminance available for your beam calculator?


----------



## get-lit

Even de-domed, LED emits only in one direction, not the back side, and the luminance shape is then a flat square, so would still take much time to arrive at formulas for and wouldn't help you with what I think you're tying to find out.

I think what you're trying to discover is if there is a fundamental geometric relation of focal length to peak illuminance alone, and a spherical source of uniform angular intensity would help narrow the factors to maybe recognize a peak illuminance pattern associated with focal length alone. The fundamental geometric relation is the "source to reflection distance", but it would be interesting if the relation extended beyond that in a manner I can't yet conceive of. I will create a uniform pattern to play with but my guess is it's unrelated other than which happens to maximize the source to reflection distances.


----------



## sven_m

(Yes, please just forget the LED. I'm tempted to clear up that I actually meant something quite different, but it's not important.)

An illustration might help to express my point. See the last picture in this post from Ra below.

If focal length or STRD had an influence on the max lux, then I would really expect to see
some effect of this in the reflector if you look back from the target to it.
Although the picture certainly shows quite some variations: darker areas where the
unperfect reflector just doesn't catch the light from the almost point like sources,
I believe that surface brightness at the outer edge is the same like near the vertex hole.

And "conservation of etendue" also can be interpreted that focal length doesn't count.

Now, if focal length becomes relevant for max lux nevertheless, in some practical situations,
and in a way that can be understood (that is, without a calculation program only), then I'm curious like hell.
I hope you see why I jumped in at your remark.



Ra said:


> I've modded two Thor spotlights: One with 35/50watt HID, and one with Mercury-short arc (super high surface brightness!)
> 
> I placed both spotlights in the field and photographed the difference in apparent surface brightness: (forget the smaller lamp in the middle:that is Maxabeam)...


----------



## get-lit

I've created the uniform luminance profile and tested with a sphere shaped source by entering matching width and height for the source size, and entering a zero reflector vertex hole diameter. As anticipated there's not a fundamental relation of peak illuminance to focal length alone. Either long or short FL can produce more peak illuminance. It's simply which FL gets the source further from the reflector surface. The long FL gets the source further by locating it further forward of the reflector, and the short FL gets the source further by locating it further inside the reflector in which the forward-most reflector surface at the aperture is furthest from the source. And medium FL has least peak illuminance because it's smack in the middle of the reflector with no regions of long "source to reflector distances".

Note that the regions of greater surface intensities of Ra's reflectors will change depending on how far away the pic is taken. If you were to view the short FL reflector "straight on" from a great distance, the outer edge would be much much brighter than the rest of the reflector, but if you viewed it up close, the inner edge would be much brighter. This is because the inner edge has a lot more source light hitting it, but it's very poorly collimated, and the outer edge has little light hitting it but it's highly collimated. A short FL reflector can produce an extremely intense beam up close because the vast majority of the light is reflecting from closer to the center of the reflector, but it quickly fans out with just the outer edge of the reflector collimating well.

Here is something interesting I'm noticing with these calculations.. with a uniform luminance source, both peak illuminance and net illuminance differ by the same degree when changing the focal length. That is to say, a peak illuminance always corresponds with net illuminance. Maybe this is what you were getting at. Of course this is only for when using a uniform luminance source, which there are none, and with no other variables involved. In the real world with non-uniform luminance sources and the additional variables of the reflector vertex hole and non-spherical source area, peak illuminance doesn't correspond with with net illuminance and it is possible to have one light with more peak illuminance and another with more net illuminance. Just as a laser has greater peak illuminance than a very large search light, the laser beam is less visible from the side at great distance because it has less net illuminance.


----------



## get-lit

Sven, here's a comparison of three configurations all with the same lamp and same aperture, lens, same everything, even the same vertex hole diameter, no retro-reflectors, just with different focal lengths... a very short .5" focal length, a long 3" focal length, and a medium 1.5" focal length.

The very short focal length has the highest peak illuminance, but the long focal length actually has slightly more net illuminance even while having 58% less peak illuminance. The medium focal length has much less of both peak illuminance and net illuminance, as a result of the source being right in the middle of the reflector with no long STRD. It's worth noting that the long focal length occupies 1/6th the space of the very short focal length, packing a way bigger punch for it's size.

All three rendered with their peak illuminance relative to 107 Lux...
















As mentioned previously, there is one additional factor which this doesn't take into account for. At lower and flatter incident reflection angles on the reflector surface, comes a greater degree of light loss and accuracy loss due to the nature of reflective coatings, which somewhat hinders short focal length configurations. This doesn't affect long focal length because the reflection angles are from straight on perpendicular to no less than 45 degrees.

EDIT - Got tracking on the new sample touch panels. Last night I couldn't help but build a new updated universal-orientation weather proof air intake assembly to test and compare it against the limited-orientation assembly. I played a bit with it while being just half complete (and half effective), and it's looking to be very promising. I'll finish it up tonight.

Also note that candlepower is no longer exactly Lux @ 1 km. I've updated the program to properly evaluate Candlepower as 0.981 Candela.


----------



## sven_m

I like your first example with uniform light source.
And I guess we should stay with such a constant luminance source for testing the influence of focal length/STRD on peak illuminance.
The mercury lamp would complicate it.

And the Maxabeam has a good reflector example: It has a short focal length, and the distance of the light source to the mirror (STRD) varies heavily.
- outer diameter: 118mm diameter
- vertex hole diameter: 10mm
- vertex focal length: ~9mm.

Now I have a thought experiment in mind, which emphasizes on possible STRD effects and can be easily fed to your calculator.
And as it is a real reflector, it could be compared to experiments.

Lets take two parts of the reflector, a small ring near the center hole, and a small ring at the outer edge.
Both rings should have the same apparent area (to ease further calculations a bit). But STRD would be extremely different.

These would do it:
1st ring: inner diameter 10mm (vertex hole), outer diameter: 14mm, -> 75.4mm²
2nd ring: outer diameter: 118mm (edge), inner diameter 117.5925mm, -> 75.4mm²

Now let's look back from the spot to these reflectors:
- if the light source appears with the same brightness in both, then max-lux should be the same (as the area is the same)
- if STRD or focal length have an effect, the light source would appear with different brightness, and thus max-lux would be different

So, if you feed this to your beam calculator, different max-lux values would mean that the rings would have to appear with different brightness.

Do you agree?


----------



## get-lit

Of course, but dependent upon distance measured because up close the inner is more intense due to much greater light gather, but at distance the outer is more intense due to much greater collimation. This is explained in the 2nd paragraph in *post#1053*.

It's evident in the geometry without a thought experiment, but for the fun of it I've performed such tests with real reflectors by taping sections of them off with electrical tape, and I've also toyed a lot with this in the past using the calculator.

I was unable to use the values you suggested because that 2nd ring is not thick enough to full-fill an iteration of the calculator (each iteration is one angle of the source), but using equivalent ring thickness the inner is 5 times brighter right up close as a result of having 5 times more light gather than the outer ring, but the outer is 14 times brighter at 1 km even with 1/5th the light gather of the inner ring.

EDIT - The inner surface contributes to the candlepower at distance by only a fraction of 1/14th compared to the outer surface. The entire inner surface is essentially useless for throw.

That's why I would use a forward facing retro-reflector if I were to build a short FL light, it would redirect the rear-ward light onto the forward surface of the reflector to benefit by it's 14x collimation. The beam calculator can be used to determine precisely at which source angle the retro-reflector would become most effective.

If you really want to make the most direct comparison, we would use equivalent ring thickness when viewing the reflector from straight on, in which case the outer ring would fare even better, but this is close enough to get the idea.


----------



## sven_m

get-lit said:


> Of course, but dependent upon distance measured because up close the inner is more intense due to much greater light gather, but at distance the outer is more intense due to much greater collimation.



Just use a long distance, otherwise we had focus problems anyway.



> If you really want to make the most direct comparison, we would use equivalent ring thickness when viewing the reflector from straight on, in which case the outer ring would fare even better, but this is close enough to get the idea.



Of course the outer ring would fare much better, if you take equivalent ring thickness: The area of the outer ring is much higher!
The point I'm after is rather the "apparent brightness" of this ring (the luminance) if you look back to the reflector.

(That's why I chose equivalent areas: Same resulting target-lux means same apparent brightness in reflector.
But if you do need to take a greater area for the outer ring then you have to divide resulting lux through the factor this area is higher.)

I'd like to show this: if focal distance or STRD determine target lux, then you have to see this if you look back to the reflector.
Inner zones would have to appear with different "apparent brightness per area" (luminance) than outer zones.
And if there's a high range of the distance of light source to reflector surface (like with the deep maxabeam reflector, from ~9mm to about 80mm)
then there should be quite some range of apparent brightness.

Do you agree here?


----------



## get-lit

To compare "apparent" brightness of the outer ring to the inner ring when facing the reflector directly on the front, compare with equal "apparent" ring thickness also when facing the reflector directly on the front.

EDIT - revising the results of water testing...


----------



## get-lit

I've completed water resistance testing/comparing the new universal-orientation air intake to the limited-orientation. There are four tests:


*1. High Flow Shower Head Spraying Downward on the Intake*

Limited Orientation Result: intake can be angled in any orientation except "beyond momentarily" in upside down angles beyond straight up.

Full Orientation Result: intake can be angled in any orientation without limitation.


*2. High Flow Shower Head Spraying All Directions on the Intake*

Limited Orientation Result: intake can be angled in any orientation except "beyond momentarily" in upside down angles beyond straight up.

Full Orientation Result: intake can be angled in any orientation without limitation.


*3. Full Water Force of VERY High Flow/Volume Tub Faucet Pouring Downward on the Intake*

Limited Orientation Result: intake can be angled in any orientation except in upside down angles beyond straight up (not even momentarily).

Full Orientation Result: intake can be angled in any orientation except pointing beyond 45 degrees downward, but only lets in a few drops which is harmless.

*
4. Full Water Force of VERY High Flow/Volume Tub Faucet Pouring all Directions at the Intake*

Limited Orientation Result: intake can be angled in any orientation except in upside down angles beyond straight up (not even momentarily).

Full Orientation Result: intake can be angled in any orientation except pointing beyond 45 degrees downward, but only lets in a few drops which is harmless.


Now I'm preferring full orientation. Does your preference change BVH?


----------



## BVH

I'm a little confused on the #2 "Fully weather resistant and direct water pour resistance under 180-degree (up to down) orientation" option back ending with post 975 and now the wording "limited Orientation" and "Full Orientation". Please clarify for me.

But for me, it comes down to:

What are the cosmetic/appearance differences between Limited and Full? - If no difference, then "full"
What are the cost and complexity (to build and to service) differences between the two? - If minor increase, then "full". If significant, then possibly "Limited".


----------



## sven_m

get-lit said:


> To compare "apparent" brightness of the outer ring to the inner ring when facing the reflector directly on the front, compare with equal "apparent" ring thickness also when facing the reflector directly on the front.



sorry, didn't get that.

I believe max-flux cannot depend on focal length/STRD directly. I have two simple points in mind:
- mirrors/lenses don't change luminance (just think of a shaving mirror or a magifying glass: things don't change their brightness when looking through)
- I never saw a reflector/lens or a picture of it, which shows that luminance depends on focal length
- well there's three: conservation of etendue (but that's abstract in comparison, and you haven't responded to this)

If your calculator yields such results, it could perhaps be improved, and as it is an awesome tool, this could be worth it.
I don't want to bother you, I just consider this a very interesting, quite basic issue.

But nevermind, I don't want to hijack your nightsword thread about this!
we might better continue elsewhere or per pm.

I guess we just agree to disagree


----------



## get-lit

BVH, this is the up/down orientation of the limited-orientation water resistance intake:





Same size cost for either, full orientation is 3/8" longer.


----------



## BVH

I can see no downsides to Full Orientation so that would be my preference.


----------



## get-lit

Me neither, and the final intake will be marginally better than the prototype, may possibly handle all cases in all orientations.


Sorry for the delay Sven, it takes more time to outline these replies to make them more clear. "Throw" is not entirely dependent on STRD... throw is the combination of both "collimation" and "light gather". "Collimation" is the geometric component of "throw" which is fundamentally dependent on STRD. It applies to the lens as well but there is a much more consistent dynamic occurring with the lens because the source is always on one side of the lens regardless of focal length, whereas the focal length places the source at various locations within the parabolic reflector creating a whole other factor with STRD's being in both directions of the source. While a lens always increases all STRDs with greater FL, the parabolic reflector can increase some STRDs while also decreasing other STRDs when changing FL.

As you move the source further away from the lens with longer focal length, "collimation" increases due to increased source distance, but the key thing I think you're missing here is that "light gather" is also then reduced. With a lens, the balance between "light gather" and "collimation" is maintained to produce consistent peak illuminance with the same aperture. 

Of course this is all for the same given source size. I've often discussed etendue throughout the thread and elsewhere, which in simplest terms is how spread out the projected image of the source is, determined by the size of the source and STRD...

Double the source size equals double the image size, half the throw, and 1/4 the image intensity.

Double the STRD equals half the image size, double the throw, and quadruple the image intensity.

Likewise, double the source intensity equals double the image intensity.

But remember that if STRD is doubled without changing aperture, then light gather will be reduced. So for instance with a lens, if the aperture and focal length are both doubled, you get half the image size, double the throw, and quadruple the image intensity as a result of double the STRD with the same light gather. Maybe the source distance should be called something different since it's not a reflection on the lens. In parabolic formulas it's the FP distance, for focus to parabola distance, but in the calculator it's designated SP for "source to parabola" because it's not FP when including offset.

EDIT- But there's another caveat... if you double the aperture and focal length, you also have to double the measuring distance for the same Lux reading. You can't just measure from the same distance with double the dimensions and get exactly quadruple the Lux because that additional diameter of the aperture is added to the image diameter when measuring at the same distance, resulting in slightly less than quadruple Lux. This is the precise reason why you get higher candela/candlepower readings at further distances.


----------



## get-lit

Here's the fundamental etendue relation determined by source to parabola distance on the image, with the "source" (RED) reflecting the "image" (BLUE) from a single reflection point...





Below is exact same size "source" (RED) but with exactly double the source to reflection distance, reflecting exactly half the "image" (BLUE) diameter and 1/4th the image area at the same image distance. When the source intensity and light gather are also the same, image intensity is 4 times that of above because the same amount of light is then contained within 1/4th the area...





Again, when doubling the focal length, the aperture also has to be doubled in order to retain the same light gather. Larger apertures generate more illuminance by providing for increased capacity for both "source to reflection distance" and "light gather". But increasing the aperture without increasing the reflection distance does not change collimation/etendue, but would increase illuminace only through increased "light gather" without reducing image size. On the other hand, increasing the reflection distance increases collimation/etendue, even without increasing aperture. The important point here is that it's the "source to reflection distance" and not aperture which determines collimation/etendue. Same with a lens, it's the relation of source size to the "source to refraction distance", rather than aperture, which determines collimation/etendue.


----------



## get-lit

Hope you don't mind I post your question here, it's important to clarify this for everyone...



sven_m said:


> ...light gather is not the same but 1/4th, if the reflecting area is at double distance. And this balances the higher collimation. Can you see it?
> 
> Not to confuse with the effect that outer parts of parabolic mirrors have 4 times the area at double distance from center,
> which is just why big reflectors gain such a massive, overproportional throw.



This alone does not determine illuminance, it takes both "collimation/etendu" and "light gather" to produce illuminance. This is a drawing of just the underlying geometry of the reflection point to illustrate the effect on the image size when moving the source away from the reflection, determining the "etendue/collimation" component of the equation, not the "light gather" component. This is an infinitely occurring process over the entire surface of the reflector.

Lets break it down to the most fundamental element, the photon. When a photon is emitted from the focus and hits a point on the parabolic reflection surface, it is reflected to the center of the beam. But when a photon is emitted from the outer edge of the source, that outer edge distance from the focus deflects the 
reflection angle, the photon is then reflected at that deflected angle onto the outer edge of the beam at distance. The angle of that photon's deflection is determined by how far it is emitted from the focus and by the distance to its reflection point on the reflector.

A large source emits photons further from the focus and produces a proportionately larger beam, and the reflection distance from focus proportionately affects that deflection angle. When the source to reflection distance is increased, the reflection angle deflection is proportionately decreased, and vice versa.

The actual amount of photons reflected is the final component in conjunction with collimation/etendue to produce illuminance. The amount of photons is based on source intensity which is how densely packed they are within the source, and based also on how much of those photons are actually reflected by the reflection surface. Aperture size accommodates capacity for "light gather" and "source to reflection distance", which ultimately determines illuminance before losses.


----------



## get-lit

When testing the new universal orientation air intake vent and I can't believe how well it's working out. This is a major part of this project and I've spent a lot of time trying out lots of ideas over the course of project and this one tops them all by a long shot. The 45 degree downward angle is no longer a limitation and I'm hammering it with water at every angle under every orientation and it's just not getting in. I haven't been able to pour on enough water from a high flow faucet to flood it. I've gone about this as a battle to beat what seemed impossible and it's amazing seeing it work so well in action. It functions as a mist eliminator as well.


----------



## BVH

This is a big milestone to hit! Isn't it great and pleasing when something works far better than you had planned or imagined!


----------



## sven_m

get-lit said:


> This is a drawing of just the underlying geometry of the reflection point to illustrate the effect on the image size when moving the source away from the reflection, determining the "etendue/collimation" component of the equation, not the "light gather" component.



...but you neglected light gather at first, got a factor of 4.
Now that I try to point out that light gather has to be considered in your example (and accounts with 1/4th),
then you don't agree again 

We're turning in circles and I guess we just don't understand each other, yet.
I believe we need a reasonable example, because it could be proved mathematically (I can't) or experimentally (tough anyway, but doable).

So I'll try to organize a telephoto lens so that I can make a picture of the maxabeam reflector in greater distance.
It's pointless to do so in 5-10m which is the limit for my digicam for a really sharp picture.
(Or do you have any other reproducible example in mind?)


----------



## get-lit

I definitely is BVH. It's just neat watching it separate air from water under any orientation and spray angle.

We're getting really close Sven.. The two separate components of "collimation" and "light gather" have to be separated...

*Collimation*
At any given reflection point on the entire surface of the reflector, photons from the source hit that given point and are reflected into the shape of the source as a distant image proportionate in size to three factors: (1) source size (2) that reflection point's distance to the source and (3) projection distance. Photons emanating from the outer edge of the source and directed to the reflection point are deflected from parabolic reflection due to emanating offset from focus, that deflection minimized by the reflection distance from source, and those outer edge photons of the source become the outer edge photons in the flipped image. If the source size is halved, or if the source to reflection distance is doubled, or if the projection distance is halved, the image size is halved, and all of the photons from the source hitting that reflection point would then be reflected onto an image with 4 times the photon density, but since the source is double the distance from the reflection point, 1/4 the photons are hitting the reflection point, so the "collimation" component is an intensity neutral geometric function which determines size and shape of the image.

*Light Gather*
As reflector surface area is increased beyond that single reflection point, photons emanating at additional angles from the source are also then gathered and reflected onto the image. This is the "light gather" component.

The reflection point "collimation" geometry is an infinity function applied across the entire surface of the reflector as "light gather" resolving the image at distance.

By the way it only takes two photons emanating from a single infinite point to produce infinitely parallel light with infinite candlepower, but it's impossible.


----------



## sven_m

Could you propose an experiment?


----------



## get-lit

I like the telephoto lens idea with the Maxabeam. Take a picture of the Maxabeam in action from as great a distance as possible while still being able to discern the outer section of the lens from the inner section. If you are far enough and everything is properly aligned, the outer section will be brighter. It's imperative that the picture is taken from within the exact center of the beam.

Edit.. Also take two close up pics using a welder's mask, right up on the aperture using the same manual camera settings (no auto anything). One pic that is parallel with the inner section of the lens, and one that is parallel with the outer section of the lens.

Up close the inner seciton will be brighter due to greater light gather. From far away the outer section will be brighter due to greater collimation.


----------



## Mr. Tone

The reflector discussion going on here makes my head spin but I love it!


----------



## get-lit

Good to hear Mr. Tone, want to be helpful without getting too off track.

Sven, I've updated my last post to correct my explanation in a way that should make more sense, especially in the particular aspect your questioning. Regarding the geometric "collimation" component, that component alone does not alter image intensity, it is intensity neutral. Hopefully this will help bring it all together for you. It's a difficult concept to fully grasp all at once, took me probably a year of analyzing.

Since you relate in more of a hands on manner, I could do some experiments with reflectors I have on hand. I have a 3" focal length and a 1.5" focal length, which would make for some fairly direct comparisons. I'll do this when I have some more free time.

Edit - I "mist" tested the intake by dousing it in various densities of mist from heavy to very fine. It is 100% mist proof. Not a hint of moisture gets in. I'm happy about this because the air/water separation function performs the mist elimination function without additional components dedicated to mist elimination, which can be a difficult process in of itself. Typically, mist elimination is accomplished with a large stainless steel mesh by impinging and entraining the mist in a random manner, but this intake works naturally and more efficiently through the calculated flow patterns of the air/water separation channels.


----------



## London Lad

Just checking in here. Still monitoring with great interest


----------



## Onestep

get-lit said:


> When testing the new universal orientation air intake vent and I can't believe how well it's working out. This is a major part of this project and I've spent a lot of time trying out lots of ideas over the course of project and this one tops them all by a long shot. The 45 degree downward angle is no longer a limitation and I'm hammering it with water at every angle under every orientation and it's just not getting in. I haven't been able to pour on enough water from a high flow faucet to flood it. I've gone about this as a battle to beat what seemed impossible and it's amazing seeing it work so well in action. It functions as a mist eliminator as well.



I was wondering if you had the air movers installed and running during these tests?


----------



## get-lit

Tests performed with forced air drawn in at the required air flow rate plus a 15% margin.

I would post illustrations and photos of the intake and alignment systems, but I'm not ready to make those public. I have shared these with BVH so this can still move forward in case TEEJ's mad cow scenario happened.


----------



## Rat

London Lad said:


> Just checking in here. Still monitoring with great interest



+1

I am selling my house soon I might just try and hide some money away. The wife will have no idea as money will be flying all over the place for the big move. Perfect cover for NS fund raising.

:wave:


----------



## get-lit

Too funny Rat, but be careful. Wouldn't want a light to come between a marriage.


----------



## Onestep

get-lit it is not a light it is "THE LIGHT!"


----------



## get-lit

Ah ok Onestep now I see the light 


Sven, I just remembered using the experiment I did with taping off sections of the reflector with electrical tape, no camera needed...

First tape off the reflector leaving just the inner ring. Then take a Lux reading right at the aperture parallel with the concentric center of the ring. Then take a Lux reading right within the beam center from very far away.

Next tape off the reflector leaving just the outer ring of the same "apparent" forward-facing thickness as the inner ring. Then take a Lux reading right at the aperture parallel with the concentric center of the ring. Then take a Lux reading right within the beam center from very far away.

Compare the results. The Lux reading of the inner ring will be brighter at the aperture due to greater light gather, and the Lux reading of the outer ring will be brighter far away due to greater collimation. The greater the distance measured, the greater the difference.



EDIT - Here's with some example renders of the dynamic using a short FL reflector and uniform source:

With the whole reflector...






Just the outer half exposed...





Just the inner half exposed...





These are brightness-balanced to the peak illuminance of the whole reflector. Notice the differences in illuminance, beam size, and light gather. These variations would be greater when using rings thinner than half the reflector.


----------



## sven_m

get-lit said:


> First tape off the reflector leaving just the inner ring. Then take a Lux reading right at the aperture parallel with the concentric center of the ring. Then take a Lux reading right within the beam center from very far away.
> 
> Next tape off the reflector leaving just the outer ring of the same "apparent" forward-facing thickness as the inner ring. Then take a Lux reading right at the aperture parallel with the concentric center of the ring. Then take a Lux reading right within the beam center from very far away.
> 
> Compare the results. The Lux reading of the inner ring will be brighter at the aperture due to greater light gather, and the Lux reading of the outer ring will be brighter far away due to greater collimation. The greater the distance measured, the greater the difference.



In great distance the Lux reading for the outer ring (for same ring thickness) *has* to be much higher, just because the apparent area alone is much bigger. I see no way to distinguish a possible focal distance effect from this. You could try to make equal areas, but--what a hassle...

The apparent luminance is a much easier way: the human eye measures light per area automatically


----------



## get-lit

Making equal apparent areas is easy, first determine the apparent area of the outer ring:

A = ((OD/2)^2 x 3.14) - ((ID/2)^2 x 3.14)

Then determine the inner ring OD of equivalent apparent area: 

OD = ((A + ((ID/2)^2 x 3.14)) /3.14)^1/2 x 2

All together:

InnerOD = (((((OuterOD/2)^2 x 3.14) - ((OuterID/2)^2 x 3.14)) + ((InnerID/2)^2 x 3.14)) /3.14)^1/2 x 2

This is a slightly different comparison than comparing apparent brightness with the eye or with a camera, in which case you'd be looking at equivalent apparent thickness. When sectioning the reflector into halves using equivalent apparent area instead of equivalent apparent thickness, the inner ring extends into the outer region of the reflector so it's not the ideal comparison to illustrate the dynamic, but it still works...

Just the outer ring exposed (12"OD, 9"ID, 49.47""A)





Inner region plus some outer region for equivalent apparent area (8"OD, 1"ID, 49.47""A)





Even with the inner ring extending into the outer region, the outer ring still has double the illuminance at distance due to greater collimation, even with just 1/14th of the light gather.

The reason I like Lux tests over telephoto camera is that the camera won't give much in the way of calculable figures, but it would be a good way to visualize the dynamic.


----------



## get-lit

Touch panel samples arrived...





On the left are working sample panels blacked out so they can't be used.

On the right are the samples of the thicker and hardened glass I plan to order, again unusable other than for endurance testing.

Cable required to make the connection to the controller board. 2,000 panels and 2,000 cables adds up.

First impression is the size is perfect. Time to beat on some glass.


----------



## get-lit

I've shored up the hardened glass along the edges and they don't break when pressing so hard it hurts both my thumbs at once. These will do. Next is testing with the controller board for resolution and accuracy.


----------



## BVH

Not sure I understand "blacked out so they can't be used" and then in the next post - "next is testing the controller board for resolution and accuracy". Do you not use a panel for checking board accuracy and reso? Why do the sample panels not work?


----------



## get-lit

The clear ones don't have the touch sensor components included, it's for testing durability only. The black ones work for testing the electronic touch capability, but are painted so that you can't see through them so they can't be used in an end product. This is done so that someone doesn't order samples just to use them without intending to place an actual order.


----------



## BVH

If you can't see thru them then how are you testing for reso and accuracy?


----------



## get-lit

There are tiny white dots on the black paint. When I touch a dot, it should change the electrical resistance of parallel pairs of horizontal and vertical leads connected to the controller board that translates those resistances to X and Y coordinates. The resolution depends on the degree of resistance variation per change in touch position. I'm sure it will be fine but have to confirm before placing the order.

The protected aluminum coated retro-reflector also just arrived, so I can test to see if that coating can withstand the temp or if I have to go bigger to keep the surface further from the lamp envelope. Lots to get done and also have to get caught up with work that pays the bills.


----------



## BVH

OK, got it now. Of course do the work that pays the bills first!!


----------



## Onestep

get-lit are you planning on running a backlite on those screens? Is it going to be variable brightness too?


----------



## get-lit

Yes, will go with either a red or a white LED for the three buttons. Having variable brightness will depend on whether or not there will be enough com pins on the controller board after implementing the other functions.


----------



## UNiT5

Interesting


----------



## langham

Those look just like Nintendo DS screens. You think you could have used those?


----------



## get-lit

These are smaller, just for use with one thumb. Didn't want to go larger because I need to minimize the distance the handle is moved rearward so that it's closer to the center of gravity. Also, even though a large screen was "neat" at first, a large size got old for me. A size suited for the thumb is functionally ideal without venturing into overboard territory. Plus smaller is quite a bit stronger.


----------



## LightSward

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*



get-lit said:


> Took some more beam shots last night. Again the cars came sneaking up. Maybe I'll leave it on for Halloween.
> 
> Beam up close...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a bit further...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From down the road...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It puts a bright pin spot on the clouds surrounded by a bit of a flood.



Great light. Beautiful beam. Hopefully one of my new searchlights can have a nice thin beam like that, only starting at 72 inches in diameter, latest, (World's Biggest....).


----------



## sven_m

Getting back to this:



sven_m said:


> I can't imagine yet, how peak illuminance might depend on focal length.



get-lit's program yields such results. But I doubt that max-lux can depend on focal length.
I thought photos of the Maxabeam reflector could help.

So, what happened meanwhile?
I tried to take some photos of my Maxabeam with a fellow worker. Everything but easy to get decent pictures with a non-flashaholic 
He has a 200mm tele. It seemed impossible to get proper pictures in 50m distance. That sounds really odd, but I promise: you will agree if you try yourself.
So we tried 25m. Perhaps that's too short, but on the other hand there's no way to get detailed pictures from 100+m distance, anyway,
with a lens that a private person can afford.

The pictures were taken through a solar filter.

Sort of focused:



, and as addition: slightly out of focus (different speed, though):





The focal length of outer and inner part varies _massively_ in this example,
- focal length at outer diameter: 118mm
- focal length near center: about 10mm

The 1st picture clearly shows: luminance can't depend _significantly_ on focal length (at 25m).
The focal length above varies about a factor of more than 10, major effects must show up in such a picture.

On the other hand : if it's about percentage effects, then there's no way to judge about this based on such pictures.
PS: the dent below the center is real. Fortunately local only. The former owner managed to bend the mirror somehow, perhaps while swapping bulbs.

I thought about convincing another guy to try with his 400mm lens, but I won't follow that way.
I might get pictures at 50m distance, but possible shooting errors will dominate percentage effects.
One might argue that more than 100m are necessary...
The reflector is great for such experiments but the tininess of the source leads to great hassle when shooting.
I hadn't eppected this in advance. 

I don't think that arguments or formulas are of help here. The stuff is too complicated to yield some "compelling logic".



I wondered what Ra might tell us about this, but he hasn't been here since oct. last year.
However, I actually found something from him about this topic from 2010, here:



Ra said:


> Within the range of aviable lenses: For all lenses with the same diameter: The focus length does absolutely not affect throw!



(the topic was about lenses at first), a few posts later reflectors were covered as well:



Ra said:


> The amount of lux that is receved by the object is only determined by the (apparent !!) diameter and surface brightness of the light-source (sun, torch, candle...)



To me, this strongly confirms the idea that focal length doesn't affect max-lux in any way. But get-lit might interpret this differently.

Perhaps when Ra (as professional optics engeineer) or another sufficiently experienced guy chimes in one day about this question, he might have an idea how to bring the topic further. I guess it needs to be an experiment which is easy to reproduce, yet yields precise results about the effects.


----------



## get-lit

The concept that long vs short FL does not affect Lux came from the lack of distance when making comparisons. At moderate relative distance, they will have about the same Lux. Short FL can actually produce more Lux at short relative distance. But the collimation ability (etendue) of long FL better retains Lux as great distance.

I've been consumed in gearing up for Summer with Spring cleaning and projects at work to pay the bills, but I did a fun little test a few weeks back and the results were about as I'd expected.

I placed an XM-L LED drop-in (without reflector) at the focal point of an Orion cassegrain telescope (huge focal length) and compared the output next to the same XM-L located at the focal point of a 3" FL reflector taped off to the same 5" diameter as the telescope. The 3" FL reflector produced a much brighter and much more visible beam as I pointed them around outside. Although the 3" FL reflector had a much much shorter focal length than the telescope, it had way more light gather to more than make up for the lessor collimation. The light from the telescope was a very dim perfectly round circle that didn't change diameter nor intensity as I panned across objects of various distances, at least the change was much too little to be able to discern from where I was. With this observation it was clear that the miniscule light gather of the super long focal length of the telescope greatly hindered it compared to the 3" FL reflector of the same diameter. The highly collimated but worthlessly dim telescope beam next to the very bright and throwy 3" FL beam was not even a fair comparison from that observation point.

I then aimed them about a mile to the end of the road, drove down and saw that the once powerful 3" FL beam had now fanned out to discernably nothing. The telescope beam was still just as dim and with about the same beam diameter as it was when 30 feet away, but at this distance it was now obviously much brighter than the 3" FL beam. Again it was not even a fair comparison, but this time in favor of the telescope.

For a given reflector diameter, choosing a focal length is essentially about what you need to get out of the light. The telescope light was powerful when viewed at great distance and absolutely worthless when observed from the telescope, and the 3" FL was powerful when observed from the reflector and absolutely worthless when viewed at great distance. The telescope has a focal length of 1540mm which is about 20x the focal length of the 3" FL reflector. That factor is plenty to differentiate the intended purpose of the light.

I will do some more thorough experiments after I can make some more time for myself, and after this project as well.


----------



## Ceya!

I have been behind the CPF curve. So any new update. Need to read at least 20 pages to catch up.

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## get-lit

Good to hear from you Ceya. I'm still making the most of this summer after the long hard winter. Will be picking this up in the Fall.


----------



## Mr. Tone

^

We will be here when you get back to it


----------



## Jenifer512

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

A light of the century. This is amazing. You are like calling the aliens to move closer .
more than a thousand watts! Nice one Bro!


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Hi all. Today I've updated the housing for weight-centered gimbal mounts... (click for large)





With allen/thumb screws attached... (click for large)




EDIT: I forgot to shorten the rear intake by 1/2" after testing back in the Spring. Now shortened, above two are still long... (click for large)





EDIT: The housing now has lamp alignment access plugs. These are small black nylon plugs below the controls, but here they are highlighted in copper... (click for large)




(click for large)


----------



## BVH

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Looking sleek and gorgeous! Happy to see you posting on this marvel!


----------



## Mr. Tone

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Nice pics, it's good to see some new progress.


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

I've ironed out some final touches to the housing before I was able to complete the lens bezel mount, which is the final step of the housing. I've also cleaned up some cosmetic lines. I've also tested stiffness and strength of composites and found that I can easily reduce the housing thickness by 25% while remaining very durable.

Sorry guys, I'm forgoing the digital display. These models reach end of life too frequently and I don't want it to become an issue. I'd also like to reduce electronic complexity. Instead will be a static LED backlit touch screen, with serial connection for the extended non-essential functions.

The static LED backlit display will have left and right columns of buttons, centered with up/down adjustment.

Left side (top to bottom): power, strobe, low power

Right side: play, timer, focus end stop adjust

Play simply repeatedly cycles the beam from spot to wide and return.

The center up/down will serve to adjust beam pattern, focus end stop, timer, and play speed.

Feedback will be via LED back light flashes. For instance an LED flash pattern would notify end of lamp life. Holding down a button could be used to reset lamp.


(Click for Large)





(Click for Large)




BTW, warning labels are ANSI symbols for bright light warning, ozone warning, hot surface warning, UV warning, fire warning, high voltage/shock warning, and explosion warning. *(EDITED)*

Regarding the lengthy discussion of graphic decals, at some point in that discussion I realized I preferred to go light on decals and instead enhance the form of the housing. Probably the only decals will be silver mirror logos embedded into the clear coat on the sides of the housing (as shown), and removable warning labels (as shown). I will include a small "CFP edition" emblem embedded into the clear coat as well (not yet shown), but otherwise not likely going nuts with graphic decals.

I also tend to prefer the cleaner look of the black bezel over the touch screen, instead of the stainless steel display bezel.

Taking a break for a few days and will then finish off the lens bezel mount to complete the housing.


----------



## Timothybil

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

That has to be one of the sexiest lights I have ever seen! The smooth flowing lines and the shiny ebony color just scream out, "Eat your hearts out, regular lights!" If nothing else, I am sure you could make a living as a graphics artist/designer. Glad to hear that the end of the process may be in sight. Really want to see some beam shots once it becomes a reality. I don't think I will ever be able to afford one, but I can dream.


----------



## BVH

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

I think everything you changed above is a very practical and efficient move. Still looks fabulous! When can I pre-order????


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Hard to say, there's still a few good steps to completion...

- Complete the bezel mount portion of the housing

- Update internal support structures to match up with the final housing

- Create internal mount provision for cooling air flow/temp sensor

- Have handle portion of housing 3D printed to test grip comfort

- Programming

- *Order components that can only be ordered in mass quantity: touch panels, DC motors with encoders for beam adjust, front exhaust tube (special order because it can't be metal due to high ignition voltage and a unique high-temp composite is needed)

- Source a hardened Pyrex glass lens manufacturer and AR coating service, also looking into Gorilla Glass or Dragontrail Glass

- Have mold made for the bezel

- Perform test on retro-reflector with enhanced high-reflectance coating for durability at high temp near the lamp

- *Have new mandrel made for the revised retro-reflector

- Update the mount for the revised retro-reflector

- *Have molds CNC machined of aluminum for the housing halves, and internal support structures

- *Purchase materials for and set up vacuum forming composite layup process for the housing halves, and internal support structures

*These steps awaiting funding early next year. Proceeding with other steps in the meantime. The list may seem long, but it's only a very tiny fraction of the list of completed steps.


----------



## Timothybil

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

In re your Pyrex lens; have you checked with FlashlightLens? I am pretty sure the size you need isn't going to be stock, but if I remember correctly they do do custom work too.


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Thank, I will be sure to check with them. Regarding the lens, it's currently configured at 11 1/4" diameter by 1/8" thick, which is about the same thickness as tempered window panes, but much smaller in area, so more than plenty for any head wind you're capable of even holding the light in. So wind is not a concern, and impact strength is the only consideration. I tend to prefer 1/8" tempered for strength vs weight for portability. For situations requiring ultimate durability at the expense of portability, a 3/16" glass lens could be made in the future. This would increase the weight by .55 lbs and offset center of gravity .32" making the light "slightly" front heavy when hand held. Of course, as discussed earlier on, the spider support could be added as well, but at the expense of "some" light loss.


----------



## London Lad

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Form follows function personified! Well done.


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Thanks Lad. Here's proper renders, the others were in editing mode..

(Click for large)

























I will update these when the bezel mount is complete.

Edit: bezel mount complete. Renderings updated.


----------



## TEEJ

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

:rock::rock:

Wow, you have designed a true masterpiece!

VERY impressive work.


----------



## Mr. Tone

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Sweeeeet work, get-lit!


----------



## Blueknight

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

It may have already been mentioned,maybe you already thought of it so I might be talking out my back side,but what about rubber type feet/pads so when the light is sitting,it doesn't get scratched.


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

I've completed the housing bezel mount and updated the renderings.

Yes thanks Bluenight, this has been covered. Adhesive pads will be used.

Edit - Renders updated. I cleaned up some lines to better blend with the bezel mount. I've also made the bezel deeper, changed up the rear feet, and made a flat ground contact area under the bezel, which is sloped to the rear feet. These can be seen in the upside-down render.


----------



## Ceya!

Glad to see it in real form.

Hope your doing well with all that snow.

S/F,
CEYA!


----------



## Timothybil

Ceya! said:


> Glad to see it in real form.
> 
> Hope your doing well with all that snow.
> 
> S/F,
> CEYA!


Just fire the Nightsword up and melt it off! It would probablyl be great for snow tunnels.


----------



## get-lit

Thanks Ceya. No snow here. I'm a few miles north of that lake effect snow band.

I'm having to re-create the CAD housing because at one point along the way I continued with a recovered file from a program crash, and apparently the recovery introduced a glitch that makes the file unsuitable for CNC milling. Not a huge deal because I'm able to recreate the new file by exactly matching up the T-Spline points of the old file. It's just a bit time consuming.


----------



## Rat

So sweet great job :thumbsup:
Its been a blast watching this light come along.

cheers


----------



## Toolboxkid

Awesome light!


Sent from my iPhone using Candlepowerforums


----------



## kuna

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*








I know it's been said before, but that is an awesome beamshot. I say that to myself that every time I see it. Just by judging from the picture alone, that beam can't be more than 2 degrees, and is probably about 1.5-1.75, unless it's a trick of the camera making the beam appear thinner than it actually is. Exactly how far down the road were you from the light when that picture was taken? Did the beam and dot on the clouds actually appear that bright to the eye or was a longer exposure used on the camera? If that beam was 1.75 deg then it would be a roughly 60Mcd beam, which is great for a prototype. Your detail-oriented approach is most notable on this project and I can't wait to see finished result.(and get one myself :devil


----------



## Mr. Tone

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

^
There's nothing like a good light show on the clouds. :naughty:


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Thanks Kuna.

Because the beam is viewed not from the side, the beam angle can actually seem to get smaller at distance. If you could see the beam from the side, then you could see the beam actually widening, but because the beam is so long, you would have to be very far away to tell. That beamshot was taken from about 4 houses down the road, so maybe only 300 ft.

Those early shots were taken with the Canon Powershot, a very basic point and shoot camera, hand-held in auto mode.

Edit.. I've been buried in work lately and hope to make quick progress soon.


----------



## Mr. Tone

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Any progress or setbacks on this of late, get-lit?


----------



## get-lit

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Well the good news is there's no setbacks. Don't think there's any left anymore lol. Right now it's just about funds, which should be resolved within about a month.


----------



## Mr. Tone

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Ah, yes, I can't imagine the financial investment of this awesome project. I will keep looking forward to seeing your progress on this.


----------



## BVH

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

As will I.


----------



## BeastFlashlight

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*



get-lit said:


> Regarding the lens, it's currently configured at 11 1/4" diameter by 1/8" thick, which is about the same thickness as tempered window panes, but much smaller in area, so more than plenty for any head wind you're capable of even holding the light in. So wind is not a concern, and impact strength is the only consideration. I tend to prefer 1/8" tempered for strength vs weight for portability. For situations requiring ultimate durability at the expense of portability, a 3/16" glass lens could be made in the future. This would increase the weight by .55 lbs and offset center of gravity .32" making the light "slightly" front heavy when hand held. Of course, as discussed earlier on, the spider support could be added as well, but at the expense of "some" light loss.



I say the high durability of a 3/16" lens is well worth the trade off of the extra weight


----------



## Mr. Tone

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

I couldn't resist bumping this great thread to see if get-lit has any more tidbits for us. :naughty:


----------



## Rowntree

Any developments on this project or has it died on the vine?


----------



## get-lit

The project is on hold for a few months while I focus on turning my primary business around.


----------



## Juggernaut

"back in my day" I remember when this was just an idea, Get-Lit if these ever end up in production or for sale in any capacity make sure to send me a PM it's been long enough I could probably afford one lol. Also still remember one of the bulb / reflector combos that "only" made like 8,000ish lumens but had some really crazy surface brightness and Lux probably lost to the depths of this thread somewhere lol.


----------



## get-lit

Yes the lamp was a ruggedized version of the XBO 500, called the XBO 500W/RC OFR with 13,000 initial lumen within a 0.7x0.8mm arc gap at 260,000 cd/cm^2, actual wattage 420W, 400 hour perpendicular life, 200 hour horizontal life.


----------



## LightSward

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*



kuna said:


> I know it's been said before, but that is an awesome beamshot. I say that to myself that every time I see it. Just by judging from the picture alone, that beam can't be more than 2 degrees, and is probably about 1.5-1.75, unless it's a trick of the camera making the beam appear thinner than it actually is. Exactly how far down the road were you from the light when that picture was taken? Did the beam and dot on the clouds actually appear that bright to the eye or was a longer exposure used on the camera? If that beam was 1.75 deg then it would be a roughly 60Mcd beam, which is great for a prototype. Your detail-oriented approach is most notable on this project and I can't wait to see finished result.(and get one myself :devil



I agree. I know it's been said many times before, so again THIS LIGHT is AWESOME..! Some day I would like to get a light like this.


----------



## Mr. Tone

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

What lamp did you end up going with? Sorry, I know you went through several possibilities and can't remember which one. With your latest design choices what is your estimated lumen and candlepower output? I hope things are going well for you. I read through about 10 pages of this thread in the last 20 minutes and saw where you said you have 4 children. I hope your family is doing well and that you are enjoying the season with them. Merry Christmas to you and your family


----------



## seery

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

You are a man of great patience. Absolutely beautiful work get-lit.

And your willingness to share knowledge is inspiring.

Question for you...I've read the entire thread, my apologies if I overlooked it. 

At what distance (in feet) can you look directly at the beam without the risk of damaging your eyes?


----------



## Timothybil

*Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs*

Five miles? :devil:


----------



## get-lit

Firstly Merry Christmas everyone and thank you for the continued encouragement.

Mr. Tone, I appreciate your kind thoughts. I'm hoping to have time with the kids at some point over the holidays. Output is estimated at 47,000 Lumen and 150-180 MCP. I had recently posted the lamp in use but was contacted to remove the post due to manufacturer arrangement which I don't want to jeopardize for the development of the super short arc version of the lamp.

Seery and Timothybil, although it will project useful light (1 Lux) out to 8 miles, 5 miles is a far cry from damaging light as the beam would still be spread out to under 3 Lux at 5 miles.

It's not easy to find a resource for what Lux value would cause eye damage. It's also dependent on the amount of exposure time. We could however use the brightness of the sun to compare at 100,000 Lux. I suppose being exposed to the brightness of the sun at night with the pupil fully dilated would be a very bad thing. This light is projected to illuminate 100,000 Lux at 100 feet. Anything closer to that of course is much more intense.

Also for comparison this is roughly 4 times the Lux intensity of the Spectrolab SX-16.
*
Taken from the SX-16 Manual:
*---------------------------------------------------------
The light from the SX-16 Nightsun® is very powerful; the intense beam can cause serious eye injury or blindness, and the high temperatures pose a fire hazard. The Searchlight beam is hazardous to people and certain materials at close range, particularly at distances within 10 feet of the Searchlight. At a 10-foot distance, the beam intensity can be 100 times as powerful as direct sunlight, and its reflection can be more intense.

-Do not look into the Searchlight beam, and never shine the light at anyone within 125 feet of the Searchlight.

-At distances of less than 10 feet, flammable materials (such as human hair, clothing, wiping rags, paper, cardboard, wood boxes, electrical insulation, and most plastics) can and will beset on fire.

-During preflight tests on the ground, make sure that the beam is directed away from nearby people and flammable materials. Make sure to tell people not to look at or to walk through the Searchlight beam.

-For Searchlight adjustments that require visual observation of the light beam, always wear dark glasses that are equivalent to welders’ glasses, shade 3.

-To avoid temporary blindness from reflected light, never operate the Searchlight in dense fog or while the aircraft is flying in clouds.
---------------------------------------------------------

Going by the SX-16 safe distance recommendation, this light would have a safe distance of 250 feet comparatively.

There is a counter-aspect to the Nightsword design that makes it safer for a given output, in that the reflector is long FL versus short FL but the nature of this affect is beyond the scope of the topic.

It's very important to note that the selection of the lamp and reflector combination was chosen based on Net Illuminance or what I refer it as beam power or overall beam visibility, rather than Peak Illuminance or Candlepower. If I were targeting Peak Illuminance for this project, I would have selected a short focal length reflector and 330W 1mm arc gap P-VIP lamp. But such a combination would pale in comparison for Net Illuminance, or overall beam power/visibility because the Peak Illuminance would be contained within just a fraction of the beam area compared to the Net-Illuminance-optimized design I'd decided to go with. This is better explained in the *discussion about candlepower vs. beam power*.

Edit: Not sure how the title switched to "Re: Superlights shoot-out 2011: The Short Arcs"


----------



## Mr. Tone

Awesome, thanks for the reply. Yes, I remember your "lumens in the beam" discussion, which was enlightening. [emoji6] I wondered about the title, too.


----------



## BVH

Merry Christmas to all you NightSword followers and of course, the designer!

My heart skips a beat whenever I see this thread active!


----------



## get-lit

All this time I'd been confused why my beamcalc had been overestimating the power of the Nightsun SX-16 by nearly three fold. I just discovered the stock Nightsun lamp is only 56,000 Lumen with a massive 5.6mm arc gap. I'd been assuming it used one of the better selections of the Osram XBO 1600W lamps. BVH, if you could rig one in, you'd see about 2.7x increase in Lux.


Non-Enhanced Nightsun with stock lamp...







Non-Enhanced Nightsun with OSRAM XBO 1600W/HS XL OFR or OSRAM XBO 1600W/HSC XL OFR lamp...





*(EDIT: This is incorrect.. I've just measured the luminous area of this lamp at 3.35mm long by 2.3mm wide, not 3.2mm x 1mm)*


----------



## Mr. Tone

That is a pretty big difference on lamp performance and specs.


----------



## get-lit

Massive difference. I'm dumbfounded why a lamp with 5.6mm arc gap is used in such a size/weight critical application for airborne use.


----------



## Mr. Tone

Didn't BVH have a contact with the manufacturer? I wonder if he could get a response from them on their lamp choice.


----------



## get-lit

He might know more about the lamp. I think it just happens to be the lamp that's been in use for eons.


----------



## BVH

The OEM lamps for the NightSun have been made by Advanced Radiation Corp (ARC) for quite a long time. I would assume as Get-lit says, it's been that way for Eons. Spectrolab is the designer of the lamp, not ARC. ARC just builds and supplies them meeting the MFG's spec. Would be fun to try to rig an Osram lamp in. Shorter gap would mean less KV for ignition so that would not present an obstacle. As long as running Voltage and Amperage is close, seems like it would not be an obstacle.

The good news is that the NightSword will perform significantly better than my SX-16 and in a hand-held format.


----------



## Mr. Tone

^

Gotcha. I am glad to see some more activity in this thread. It is the most exciting thread on CPF for me.


----------



## BVH

Agree 110%!



Mr. Tone said:


> ^
> 
> Gotcha. I am glad to see some more activity in this thread. It is the most exciting thread on CPF for me.


----------



## get-lit

They may not have wanted the beam to be too collimated because then flood mode would have much greater hole, unless a smaller reflector is used. But you can't go much smaller because the lamp base has large diameter and needs a lot of clearance for high voltage. So going with smaller reflector would have greatly reduced light gather with the same vertex diameter for safe lamp base clearance. So I'm guessing the larger arc gap was used to make the light more versatile with less flood hole issue.


----------



## Mr. Tone

get-lit said:


> They may not have wanted the beam to be too collimated because then flood mode would have much greater hole, unless a smaller reflector is used. But you can't go much smaller because the lamp base has large diameter and needs a lot of clearance for high voltage. So going with smaller reflector would have greatly reduced light gather with the same vertex diameter for safe lamp base clearance. So I'm guessing the larger arc gap was used to make the light more versatile with less flood hole issue.



That makes sense, I can imagine that helicopters take advantage of the adjustable beam spread depending on how close or far away they are from their target.


----------



## get-lit

So, every so often I keep going back and pounding my head against the wall about the doughnut hole issue in flood mode with this project's high etendu configuration. It's something I haven't been comfortable with all along. Well now it's resolved, and the solution is so simple. The alignment design and construction is actually more simple than before. I'm not ready to disclose how it's done but I'm keeping BVH up to speed and he is providing helpful feedback. The reduced space required for the alignment assembly, in addition to some other changes, is allowing me to greatly reduce the overall housing size, and not only keep horizontal center of gravity in check, but also vertical.


----------



## Mr. Tone

Cool, thanks for the update.


----------



## get-lit

Some time ago, the issue of Mercury startup time had gotten the best of me and I'd decided to make live comparisons to the best of the Xenons.

The issues that had prevented me from going with Xenon in the past are luminous efficiency and the size and weight of the power supply making the system completely unportable while also requiring only 240V AC input. With certain Xenon lamps however, I can design a power supply from the ground up that operates extremely efficient on DC input with a total system weight of under 11 lbs for 1600W as opposed to say around 100 lbs.

Separating the AC to DC component in the power supply design and eliminating the massive transformers allows the power supply to be incredibly smaller and lighter for portable DC operation, with acceptible DC input from 10-80VDC. For running the power supply off 110VAC, 12VDC converters are available for cheap.

I've also devised a method to greatly extend the usable output range so that much lower wattage lamps could be used. Traditional power supplies have a narrow output range because lower watt Xenons are damaged by the startup phase of power supplies designed for higher watt lamps.

My first live comparison is that of the hot spots of the Mercury lamp next to the 1600W Xenon through a double layer of #10 welding shield plus a single layer #5 welding shield, and I like the result. In the photo below, Mercury is on the left and 1600W Xenon is on the right. Although difficult to tell, the Xenon is measurably much brighter at the center of the hot spot, even though the Mercury has two significant advantages in the test. Firstly, the Mercury is a brand new lamp and the Xenon is near EOL. Secondly, Mercury is a "greener" output than Xenon's pure white, therefore the Xenon is more filtered by the green welding shields.

Double layer of #10 welding shield plus a single layer #5 welding shield..





Below are the lamps under #10 welding shield..





Below are the lamps half way through cool down..





Next, I have on order for testing my favorite Xenon on paper, the XStage 2000W. This lamp has 170,000 cd/cm^2 average luminance and can be driven continuously at over 2500W with 208,000 cd/cm^2. However, this lamp may or may not be suitable for the power supply design I have planned and I would have to perform an electrical test of the lamp's startup nature as well. I will receive this lamp for testing this week.

Finally, I also have on order the Ushio version of the famed and long gone XBO 500W/RC OFR with 260,000 cd/cm^2 average luminance. This is no longer in production by either company for quite some time. But for a price, Ushio is producing one for me with the option to order a run of them if all goes well. I ordered a month ago and it should arrive in a few weeks.

I'm excited to compare first hand all of the lamps that have always been at the top of my want list. I will post further comparisons as soon I receive the next two lamps.


----------



## PolarLi

Really looking forward to learn more about your two new lamps. 
As far as I know, no one has ever tried the 500W ultra short arc in a searchlight application before, so that should be interesting.
BTW, the mercury lamp looks amusingly tiny beside the Xenon :laughing:


----------



## BVH

The 300 Watt Mercury lamps in my Locators are only 2.35" in length and the arc chamber diameter is .400". Downside......25 Hr life. GE MARC300 EZS









Talk about the cliche "He who burns the brightest, burns the shortest"


----------



## get-lit

PolarLi, the XStage lamp will be even larger. For the Mercury lamp's size, it's intensity and efficacy is amazing. I'm sure you're quite familiar with this lamp. If only it didn't take so long to start up.

BVH, it has too small an Anode to dissipate heat and the internal volume is not large enough to keep the envelope from darkening quickly. "He who burns the brightest, burns the shortest".. and at 25 hours that lamp didn't even make the 27 club of lamps


----------



## Davekan

Cool pictures. I also like both of those lamps. The little 500 has a luminous area of only .8 mm x .7 mm That should make a very narrow beam. I still like the Xstage bulb because they are easy to get, and have very high intensity, and way more lumens.
Just to let you know my 3000 watt power supply only weighs about 35 lbs. It also has 120 volt 500 watt in it that probably can be removed to make it even lighter.
That is a great idea, to go DC/DC, to make it even smaller, and also weigh less.

Dave


----------



## get-lit

Hi Dave, Xenon power supplies weighed more back when I decided on the Mercury lamp. Now there's a new PowerGems 3000W power supply that weighs only 13 lbs. Very nice! But still is AC input only and not capable of being converted to DC input by circumventing the AC/DC conversion, according to the manufacturer.

The power supply I'm making will weigh just a few lbs and accept 10-80VDC. Also, the entire system I have planned will be fully submersible in salt water. It could be operational underwater if not for the lamp itself. The issue that prevents fully encapsulated power supplies is they require ventilated cooling surfaces of specific components and encapsulation/conformal coatings are all very much thermally insulating. So I came up with a method to make the encapsulation/conformal coating actually much more thermally conductive than an aluminum heat sink while also being fully electrically insulating. This would also help to reduce weight because the coating would eliminate the need for heat sinks while also being even more thermally conductive.

Here is video of *salt water submersion with a DC fan I've insulated
*(The fan has been in the salt water for over a month and runs every time)


----------



## LightSward

Nice job. Salt Water Submersion with fan you insulated is awesome..! Good work...I didn't think anything like this could work so well in salt water. Again nice work!


----------



## get-lit

I've used this same fan for other tests before insulating it, and it used to shut off with just a few drops of water.

The Xstage lamp arrived but I have to wait to receive another nut for the anode mount. It calls for 27mm thread but it's actually fine thread.

Also received word that the 500W lamp is done and being shipped.


----------



## Smood

Hi Get-lit any updates on the project? Thanks.


----------



## matt304

Did you sort of give up on this ever being a production design? Sounds like you might have leaned towards personal experimentation over the long run, possibly? Which I get, totally. A lot of production designs become quite harder to pursue, especially when some of us have never-ending OCD like tweaking natures of designs. Sometimes in our mind it's just never good enough to actually produce! Just another screw here and...wait, there too. What year is it again?


----------



## Mr. Tone

matt304 said:


> Did you sort of give up on this ever being a production design? Sounds like you might have leaned towards personal experimentation over the long run, possibly? Which I get, totally. A lot of production designs become quite harder to pursue, especially when some of us have never-ending OCD like tweaking natures of designs. Sometimes in our mind it's just never good enough to actually produce! Just another screw here and...wait, there too. What year is it again?



Wow, I just realized that I've been following this thread for 5 years. I will never have an actual need for something like this but I love seeing people push the boundaries of tech. No matter to me whether getlit produces more than one of these, I've enjoyed the ride he's provided. Hopefully we will get to see him complete this project.


----------



## get-lit

Sorry about not responding, I hadn't received notification of responses here. I've been progressing slowly and quietly because I've been still coping with the renewed issue of startup time. I've gotten a lot of outside feedback about the >=1 minute startup being a HUGE issue for a portable handheld searchlight, while preferred to have instant full output even with roughly half the efficiency. As mentioned, this would mean doing away with Mercury and going with Xenon. This would make for a considerable change in direction for the project and would require a fully custom designed power supply to accommodate small size, light weight, efficiency and low voltage operation. That alone is a costly and time consuming venture, but very worth it. On the plus side, still the methodologies remain the same and most of the testing is complete.

I've compared the top Xenon candidates I've had in mind.. The shortest gap Xenon 1600W, the XSTAGE 2000W, and finally the Ushio version of the elusive XBO 500W/RC OFR. The Ushio version is the UXL-502HS-O. Below are the luminous intensities of the current Mercury lamp, the Xenon 1600W, and the XSTAGE 2000W. These photos are taken though several welding filters...







(EDIT: Note that the arc gaps are not the same as the luminous areas. Luminous areas for Xenon are shorter than the gaps.)

It's been exciting to test these and see the results. One thing this illustrates is that the manufacturer-listed luminous area specs are spot on for length, but not for width. In an axial orientation, tighter width is much more important due to how the source is geometrically transposed to the image.

I didn't have the UXL-502HS-O on hand at the time of this comparison, but after firing it up I realized it's not quite the output I'm looking for. Although it is a very intense spot, it's not enough output overall compared to the others.

I was surprised to see how well the shortest gap Xenon 1600W fared next to these Mercury lamps I'd been working with. And clearly the XSTAGE 2000W has an advantage over the 1600W even when driven at the same output. But the 1600W has the advantage of operating as low as 1150W, which makes it more versatile. The 1600W can be operated from 1150W to 1725W, while the XSTAGE 2000W can be operated from 1610W to 2530W. The 1600W is also noticeably smaller and somewhat lighter. The XSTAGE 2000W is a foot long, which makes the Long Focal Length configuration much more challenging to be weight-balanced in this application. There are also higher wattage XSTAGE lamps, with the 3000W being the most intense of the bunch, but that's surely too much power consumption for a portable handheld. I could do it .. If this were a one-off project, I'd probably go for the XSTAGE 3000W and a 30" reflector, but it wouldn't be practical for the use this project is geared for.

On a final note, there is another newer 1600W Xenon lamp available with even shorter gap and more amperage with less voltage, which should be somewhat on par with the XSTAGE 2000W when driven at the same power. It's the same size as the XSTAGE 2000W but costs $750 while the XSTAGE 2000W costs only $500. I'm not keen on paying more for less. Again the 1600W can be operated at lower power when needed but I'm not sure I want to dump another $750 for testing when I may end up preferring the XSTAGE 2000W anyhow. I may have to give it a go, to be at ease with the final decision.

I could use some feedback whether 1610W minimum power requirement (1750W with PS losses) would be much of a hindrance for a portable handheld. That's just within the use of standard 15A residential, but what about powering from a vehicle, boat, or battery power etc. A 1600W lamp with 1150W minimum may be needed for this purpose.


----------



## PolarLi

Hard to say. It depends a lot on the usage. Did you plan DC input only, 12 or 24 v? Either way, no ordinary vehicle charging system is able to keep up for longer runs, so if you need to install a new charging system, I doubt the cost difference between 1200 and 1700 watt are going to make much difference. If you had AC input option, a 2 kw portable generator would most likely be the cheapest alternative. For stand alone battery power, it all boils down to how much runtime that is needed.


----------



## get-lit

Pretty much what I was thinking as well.

Input to be full range 12-80VDC. AC input would be with a separate AC/DC converter. Keeping the conversion as a separate component reduces the size/weight of the system while operating portable on DC power. While on AC power, the size/weight of a separate AC/DC converter doesn't matter much because it doesn't tend to be portable application when using an AC source.


----------



## PolarLi

I just checked the weight of a 2000w meanwell PSU, and it's 2 kg. So for sure, it wouldn't matter much if you stuck that on a gasoline generator.


----------



## Mr. Tone

It's nice to see some activity, again, getlit. Those lamps are using a lot of juice, that's for sure. Hopefully you can find the best balance of efficiency, performance, and startup/warmup time.


----------



## BVH

My power source is still planned to be my 9S/100Ah LiFeP04 battery pack so using 30 Volts as an average, I'd need to move about 66 amps thru the connection cables. My goal is quiet operation. I don't want to have to listen to even a quiet Honda Inverter generator when operating the light. Ultra-fine #8 would probably do fine in this scenario. I could also add 4 cells to the pack and reduce Amps to about 50. I'm just thinking about physically holding the light during use and not having to deal with #4's and all the associated weight and bulk.

If I remember correctly, you were somewhere in the area of 70,000 Lumens using the 1000 Watt Mercury lamp, right? What are the Lumen numbers of the pure Xenon lamps you mention above? Is there a compromise Mercury lamp that would provide a 5-10 second warm-up? That, for me, is something easily lived with. Taking into consideration the necessary power supply components, it's not like you're going to grab this light off the shelf, run outside and turn it on to perform emergency search and rescue. There is time required to set up the system and 5-10 seconds of warm-up won't amount to anything in the scheme of things. Heck, the more I think about it, even a 20-30 second warm-up to 75% brightness is not that big of a deal given system set-up time. Going Xenon and the extra weight and length of the lamp will probably grow the light body and its' weight substantially, won't it? It's a shame to lose the efficiency of the Mercury lamps. I know in earlier discussions, I voiced concerns about the long warm up time but my opinion has changed based on thinking about how the light will be used, it's not a "Grab-N-Go" light.


----------



## Mr. Tone

^
Think of how ridiculously bright this thing will still be even if output were only 10% at start up!


----------



## get-lit

Hi all..

We can generally pick from two of the three: high efficiency, high luminous intensity or fast startup...

Fast Startup + High Efficiency = Metal Halide
High Efficiency + Luminous Intensity = Pure Mercury
Luminous Intensity + Fast Startup = Pure Xenon

These Xenon's when operated at 1600W are about the same 70,000 Lumen as the Mercury. The Mercury lamp is actually 850W, the same lamp PolarLi is using in his 14". In fact the beams from that 14" and this 11" with retro-reflector are about identical. But the ballast for the 850W consumes 1000W and the ballast for these Xenon lamps would be >95% efficient.

Pure Xenon has somewhat higher Luminous Intensity than Pure Mercury and with pure Xenon you do get > 95 CRI in pure white. There are Mercury/Xenon mix lamps with high luminous intensity and a blend of efficiency and startup time, but the only one's I've been able to find are optimized for deep UV output for microlithography. Lumen output isn't even listed, but they could still be in the middle ground of efficiency and startup time. They're also very expensive.

There is also another issue with Mercury/Xenon lamps; they have high open circuit voltage requirement and therefore not able to be driven by a small, lightweight, efficient power supply that could accept low voltage DC input. It would require 110AC/110VDC input just as the 850W Mercury, so you'd be tethered to an additional inverter power supply to utilize a low voltage 12-80 VDC power source when going portable rather than when stationary. It's a backwards topology.

This is an unrecognized advantage of pure Xenon; the low voltage DC operation is inherent and the conversion from high voltage AC/DC would not be needed when going portable with low voltage power source. It's also not the "nominal operating voltage" that's the issue, it's the lamp's "open circuit voltage". The 1600W lamp is perfect in this regard, with 75V (hot restart) boost phase requirement. The listed open circuit voltage for the XSTAGE 2000 is listed higher, but should in theory be even easier to start than the 1600W because the XSTAGE 2000 has the same nominal voltage and even smaller arc gap. Testing this would be the next step if determining to go with the XSTAGE 2000.

The total system weight with the 1600W Xenon (1150W to 1725W) would be 11 lbs. The total system weight with the 2000W XSTAGE (1610W-2530W) would be 12.5 lbs.


PolarLi,
For converting 120 VAC to 12 VDC, 1025W power supplies pulled from servers have been on eBay for $55 + $15 shipping and weigh 2.27 lbs each. Two of these are 4.54 lbs.


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> ..............There is also another issue with Mercury/Xenon lamps; they have high open circuit voltage requirement and therefore not able to be driven by a small, lightweight, efficient power supply that could accept low voltage DC input. It would require 110AC/110VDC input just as the 850W Mercury, so you'd be tethered to an additional inverter power supply to utilize a low voltage 12-80 VDC power source when going portable rather than when stationary. It's a backwards topology.
> 
> This is an unrecognized advantage of pure Xenon; the low voltage DC operation is inherent and the conversion from high voltage AC/DC would not be needed when going portable with low voltage power source. It's also not the "nominal operating voltage" that's the issue, it's the lamp's "open circuit voltage". The 1600W lamp is perfect in this regard, with 75V (hot restart) boost phase requirement. The listed open circuit voltage for the XSTAGE 2000 is listed higher, but should in theory be even easier to start than the 1600W because the XSTAGE 2000 has the same nominal voltage and even smaller arc gap. Testing this would be the next step if determining to go with the XSTAGE 2000.
> 
> The total system weight with the 1600W Xenon (1150W to 1725W) would be 11 lbs. The total system weight with the 2000W XSTAGE (1610W-2530W) would be 12.5 lbs........................



Get-lit, thanks for re-summarizing the pros and cons. Now I remember why the Xenon was looking better, fast start and very accommodating with low voltage power supplies and no loss of Lumens output versus the original 850W. I guess that puts my vote back on the 2000W Xstage. 12.5 lbs is very reasonable total weight for a light of this performance. IIRC, it's the weight of the original Costco HID and it's close in size, iirc.

Power to the lamp will be control panel adjustable, IIRC, correct?


----------



## get-lit

Yes, by thumb control.

Also, if we design the max power to be the nominal 2000W for the XSTAGE, it would be significant performance over the 1600W lamp while weighing 11.75 lbs. Weight would be saved when designing for max 2000W rather than 2500W because the cooling capacity would be less and the power supply would be smaller. Also, it would be slightly more optically efficient because the smaller air flow ducting would slightly less obscure the optics; not a huge hit but it's a factor. I can't see this being supplied more than 2000W for the vast majority of applications. 2500W would require a 240VAC source and a 240VAC->VDC converter with at least 24V output, and when operated under battery power it's much more likely to be run at the minimum 1610W. I'm unsure it would be worthwhile to lug around another 3/4 lb with slightly less optical efficiency for something that would almost *never* get utilized.

To figure total system wattage, figure (1.05 x "Watts to the Lamp") + 45W for when under max fan power.


----------



## BVH

I rarely operate any of my SA lamps at more than Nominal power. While I could operate this lamp in your light at 2500W with my 30V input, I most likely would not to be kind to the lamp and extend its' life. Dropping .75 lbs is a side bonus as well. You've got my excitement up again! Anything I can do to assist, please let me know.

Would operating the 2000W Xstage lamp continuously at 1150W result in a slow buildup of particulates on the inside of the arc chamber (the darkening of the envelope?)


----------



## get-lit

Operating Xenons under their rated range will very quickly destroy the electrodes. I gather because when under-driven, electron flow is not enough to carry heat away.


----------



## A_L_R_O_M

This thread is filled with knowledge!
I really gather energy from those, who are building that high power short-arc stuff!
One day i will be just like you xD
I'm now being in contact with some factory, trying to build 400W electronic ballast with hot-restrike feature and DC input...
May be i will be able to build some high power DC output ballast with high voltage ignition circuitry and try to fire some high power short-arc xenon bulbs.. But i want to stay within 500W-1000W range...


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> Operating Xenons under their rated range will very quickly destroy the electrodes. I gather because when under-driven, electron flow is not enough to carry heat away.


 My mind must have been somewhere else when I asked the question that resulted in the above answer. What I should have asked is if operating the 2000W Xstage lamp at 1610W continuously would result in the early buildup/darkening/electrode destruction? I know you've stated that's an acceptable power level within the range cited but are there any negatives in doing so?


----------



## get-lit

Lamp life is the same. Below rated minimum current, insufficient electron flow causes the Anode to "deactivate", also tending to result in arc instability. Within the rated current range, the Anode remains activated and lamp life is the same.


----------



## get-lit

Here's what the XSTAGE 2000W is measuring at Min, Nominal, and Max power...

21.35V @ 70A= 1494.5W -> 76,660 Lumen
23.45V @ 90A = 2110.5W -> 118,203 Lumen
24.95V @ 110A = 2744.5W -> 150,009 Lumen

I thought the lumen output on the spec sheet was under rated, but this is more than I expected.

I may have to try the XBO 1600 W DHP lamp. It has the same arc gap as the XSTAGE 2000W but with more current in the <1900W power range, so it should have slightly more luminous intensity within that power range.

Determining actual power consumption based just on the spec sheet is difficult because the voltage changes as a factor of amperage. Also, the actual voltage measurements are often much different than spec.

The XBO 1600 W DHP is rated at 78A 21V nominal, with 56A to 85A current control range. With this, I estimate voltage to be 18.4V @ 56A and 22.3V @ 85A, with estimated power range 1030W to 1896W.

*So theoretically, the XBO 1600 W DHP has five advantages:*

1. It "should" have slightly more luminous intensity over the XSTAGE 2000W within the <1900W power range

2. It could be powered as low as 1030W, as opposed to 1495W, making it more versatile for portable applications

3. It's rated for 3000 hours as opposed to 1000 hours

4. The housing would be slightly more optically efficient due to smaller exhaust and retro-reflector sizing requirements, which would add an additional 3% output advantage

5. 1.5 lbs less total system weight (11 lbs vs 12.5 lbs)

*The disadvantages are:*

1. It costs 50% more

2. It has 45% less maximum output

So generally, the XBO 1600 W DHP would be more practical, less weight, slightly more efficient, and slightly more intense within the <1900W power range. While the XSTAGE 2000W should provide for 42% net additional maximum output when powered at 2745W.

This is just theoretical summary to decide whether to get the XBO 1600 W DHP for testing.


----------



## BVH

I would really love to know the Low, Nominal and High power Lumen numbers for the 1600 Watt so "yes" of course get the sample lamp for testing.....  Easy for me to say since I'm not spending $800 for the lamp! I keep vacillating back and forth every time you post estimated performance numbers and the pros and cons of each of the two lamps. More Luminous intensity with the smaller lamp is going to provide "what visually" down range on the target versus the 2000 Watt lamp? (both at Nominal power) Let me throw this comparison out again that I did a few years back with the Maxabeam at 80 Watts and the Megaray at 150 Watts. The Maxabeam "spot" on the crown of a big tree at 900 Yards was brighter than with the larger spot of the higher power Megaray however, I could not discern that what I was lighting up was the crown of a big tree. With the Megaray, I could easily tell that I was lighting up the crown of a big tree even though the spot was a little less bright because it was bigger and there were many more Lumens down field lighting up the area surrounding the tree.

I don't like the thought of "giving up" Lumens down field just to have a slightly more bright but tiny spot. Is this sort of what were throwing around with the two lamps? Nearly 120,000 Lumens (at Nominal power) in a handheld Short Arc light is really just an amazing thing to think about. Do you think the 1600 Watt will provide around 70,000 Lumens? If so, that's a lot of Lumens to give up. I, personally, am not concerned with the big difference in lamp life as this will not be high use light for me. And a new 2000 Watt lamp will cost less than the 1600.

To bring up the Focal Length topic again: I remember discussing the beam quality some time back and based on the pics you posted showing the "spot" cross sections of the different beams, I determined I liked the longer focal length produced beam better because their intensity was more uniform throughout the beam cross section versus shorter focal length beams which had a brighter center tapering off at the outer areas. They were just a more impressive beam to look at. Will there be any significant beam quality differences produced by these two lamps?

I'd be more than happy to pick up half the cost of the sample 1600 lamp with absolutely no strings attached. Even if the light was never produced, I would be happy to do so. It's worth the cost just for the data and information you provide back to the group.


----------



## get-lit

BVH, what's also nice about the LFL beam is the lack of corona light that tends to wash out your view of what the spot is illuminating. To be clear, nothing is changing regarding the design with long focal length and retro-reflector, so the beam patterns will still be the same uniform beam with minimal corona that you prefer.

The arcs of these two lamps should be very similar. The arc gaps are the same and they're both the latest generation Xenon with various enhancements. When operated at 1900W, the primary difference should be that the XBO 1600 W DHP would have just a hair more luminous intensity with marginally less wide luminous area due to operating under slightly higher current. The current for the XBO 1600 W DHP at 1900W is 85A. The current for the XSTAGE 2000W when operated at the same 1900W is 81A. It's not a big difference but it is a slight advantage for the XBO 1600 W DHP.

What's really being compared is which lamp better suits the goal of the light. For output and efficiency that is better optimized for <2000W power under which this light would likely be used most often, the XBO 1600 W DHP is better suited. This has to do with the fact that the system design would have somewhat more efficient optical path, less total system weight, and lower power capability when needed.

The XBO 1600 W DHP is basically a 1600W version of the XSTAGE 2000W. All it comes down to is, do we want a lamp that operates under 1495W-2745W or a lamp that operates under 1030W-1900W. When both operated at the same power, the XBO 1600 W DHP has the edge theoretically. If the light is not likely going to be operated at more than 1900W, then the lower power lamp should be better suited all around. On the other hand, if 2745W capability is more important, then there are sacrifices in the <1900W range.

I am torn between the two. Both would be a ridiculous beam. 2745W kicks it up another notch but more into the realm of impractical, because how often are you going to be able to feed it that much power. If you're most often going to have 2000W on hand or less, the XBO 1600 W DHP is slightly better in output and is more practical due to less weight and less minimum power requirement.







(Notice the slight drop in intensity of the XSTAGE 2000W next to the XBO 1600 W DHP when both powered at 1900W)

This is theoretic based on the specs for the XBO 1600 W DHP. To be sure, I'd have to test it. I'll go ahead and order one to test and compare. I'll also post the Luminous Intensity Distribution Patterns for the lamps I've tested. When modeling the beams, I've found that it's not enough to measure the Luminous Intensity Distribution Pattern for a lamp of one class and use that pattern for other lamps in its class, because the patterns vary too much among each lamp. The patterns vary even under different powers with the same lamp.


----------



## BVH

The rotating pics are very helpful! Yes, I noticed the slight dimming of the 2000 Watt lamp compared to the 1600 Watt lamp when both driven at 1900 Watts. I'm still not sure of what the user will see if he or she were to use one light with the 2000 and one with the 1600, both powered at 1900 Watts and shone one at a time from the same location onto the same target down range. With the 1600 and it's slightly brighter hot spot but "only 70,000 Lumens, versus the 2000 Watt with it's slightly dimmer hot spot but with 118000 Lumens, how would you describe what the user will see with each? The 50,000 additional Lumens have to go somewhere and make the scene more dramatically lite up, right?

Beyond all that, I think you're spot-on about being able to supply over 2000 Watts to the light in a practical manner/use. I don't think that will be practical. So the 1600 is probably the most overall efficient design for practical light use. The lighter weight of the light is a big bonus.

The spot for the NightSun above I assume is at the same degree of focus produced by your proposed reflector as are the rest of the lamps and not at the minimum 4 degree focus when installed in the NightSun? setup, correct?


----------



## get-lit

Okay I see where the confusion is.. You're going by 70,000 lumen for the 1600 W, which is correct for classic 1600W Xenons.

How I'm measuring lumen output is by taking lux measurements at each axial angle and calculating the total lumen output. This method has produced lumen results consistent with SMH-850 mercury lamps and classic XBO 1600 W/HS lamps on hand. I'm coming up with 76k to 81k Lumen among four SMH-850 lamps. The SMH-850 has a calibrated measurement of 80k Lumen, so it's fairly consistent. I'm coming up with 67k to 72k Lumen among three classic XBO 1600 W/HS lamps, which is listed at 70k Lumen.

I'd been suspect of the XSTAGE 2000W being listed at only 80k Lumen because it's not consistent with Xenon efficacy in this power range and the newer tech lamps are supposed to be even more efficient. Using the same testing method for the XSTAGE 2000W, I'm coming up with 77k Lumen @ 70A, 118k Lumen @ 90A, and 150k Lumen @ 110A. I've taken the measurements three times to be sure.

The XBO 1600 W DHP doesn't have lumen listed. Because it's the same new tech and parameters as the XSTAGE, I'm assuming it would have the same relative efficacy as the XSTAGE, so the XBO 1600 W DHP should be on par for lumen. So for this preliminary assessment to determine whether the XBO 1600 W DHP is worth testing, I'm assuming the same power consumption with the same tech would produce the same Lumen output. And I'm assuming the XBO 1600 W DHP would have slightly more luminous intensity with relatively narrower luminous area than the XSTAGE 2000W because it operates at slightly higher current at the same input power with the same arc gap. This is because luminous intensity and inverse luminous area are relative to arc gap and current.

This makes the XBO 1600 W DHP worth testing to find out for sure, but only if it's desirable to design a light around this lamp provided it tests out as anticipated. It would be an expensive test and I needed to see if there would be interest in a light better optimized for the <2000W power range first.

Edit... The NightSun is calculated with the stock lamp in the Enhanced NightSun configuration, not the Nightsword configuration. I threw this in the mix to help you compare because you have that one. Of course this has to be taken with a grain of salt because I don't have the Nightsun lamp to test the actual luminous area and Luminous Intensity Distribution Pattern.


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> Okay I see where the confusion is.. You're going by 70,000 lumen for the 1600 W, which is correct for classic 1600W Xenons.
> 
> The XBO 1600 W DHP doesn't have lumen listed. Because it's the same new tech and parameters as the XSTAGE, I'm assuming it would have the same relative efficacy as the XSTAGE, so the XBO 1600 W DHP should be on par for lumen. So for this preliminary assessment to determine whether the XBO 1600 W DHP is worth testing, I'm assuming the same power consumption with the same tech would produce the same Lumen output.



OK, I think I'm with you now. You're estimating Lumens-per-Watt efficiency to be on-par-close, with both lamps. If this pans out with lamp testing (if you go that way)(I'll contribute to lamp costs), then all the PRO's you listed for the 1600 DHP lamp really stand out and I vote going this route. For my enthusiasts use of this light, I don't see feeding any lamp more than about 1800-2000 Watts. That power level gives me about an hour of run time with my LiFeP04 pack.

1 Vote for a design around the 1600 W DHP lamp.


----------



## get-lit

Seems the lamp isn't well stocked. I'll first have to contact Osram to ensure it won't be phased out.


----------



## get-lit

The Osram rep does not recommend DHP lamps based on experience. They're for non-moving digital projectors, while XSTAGE is more stable and less expensive. So really there's no choice but to stay with the XSTAGE 2000W. So next I'll be working on the design of the portable power supply for this lamp.


----------



## BVH

It's sometimes kind of nice when a difficult choice is made for you.


----------



## LED1982

BVH said:


> I keep vacillating back and forth every time you post estimated performance numbers and the pros and cons of each of the two lamps. More Luminous intensity with the smaller lamp is going to provide "what visually" down range on the target versus the 2000 Watt lamp? (both at Nominal power) Let me throw this comparison out again that I did a few years back with the Maxabeam at 80 Watts and the Megaray at 150 Watts. The Maxabeam "spot" on the crown of a big tree at 900 Yards was brighter than with the larger spot of the higher power Megaray *however, I could not discern that what I was lighting up was the crown of a big tree. With the Megaray, I could easily tell that I was lighting up the crown of a big tree even though the spot was a little less bright *because it was bigger and there were many more Lumens down field lighting up the area surrounding the tree.
> 
> *I don't like the thought of "giving up" Lumens down field just to have a slightly more bright but tiny spot.* Is this sort of what were throwing around with the two lamps? Nearly 120,000 Lumens (at Nominal power) in a handheld Short Arc light is really just an amazing thing to think about. Do you think the 1600 Watt will provide around 70,000 Lumens? If so, that's a lot of Lumens to give up. I, personally, am not concerned with the big difference in lamp life as this will not be high use light for me. And a new 2000 Watt lamp will cost less than the 1600.





BVH said:


> The spot for the NightSun above I assume is at the same degree of focus produced by your proposed reflector as are the rest of the lamps and not at the minimum 4 degree focus when installed in the NightSun? setup, correct?



I totally agree with rather having larger spot as opposed to a pencil beam brighter spot. Wow a minimum of 4 degrees??? For some reason I was always under the impression that this Nightsword was a 1 degree spot just like Maxabeam? No clue why I was thinking of this light like a Maxabeam when numbers like 80,000 and 120,000 lumens are being thrown around. I suppose because I've only just skimmed this thread because so much of it is over my head, this is definitely the big boy's table, I only feel worthy to sneak a post in because of the 2 months of silence lol. 

It totally sounds like get-lit has plans to produce this light, just torn between a few power/efficiency decisions, maybe this is a stupid question but does that mean the light would be 'Ignorant Friendly?' What I mean is that I've heard it said that for a lot of the more powerful HID lights you really have no business owning one if you are not pretty knowledgeable about HID, lest you blow yourself up. If you ever did produce these for sale get-lit would they be dangerous for the ignorant? If so I would have no business even considering one, boy there's a lot of power in these things. My thinking though is that any hints of you possibly producing the light for sale means that it must have adequate safeties in place. Just my 2 cents, at these insane power outputs I'd cast my vote for maximizing efficiency plus shooting for the shortest start up time, since ALL versions would have SICK power anyway! But BVH makes a good point too it's not really a grab & go light to be so worried about quick start up. 

get-lit is in NY, if these were ever for sale, and I ever thought about pulling the trigger on one, shooting down to NY to check one out would be no big deal, just thinking out loud lol.


----------



## BVH

I believe I was assuming that for apples to apples comparison all lamp shots were made at the respective lights 4 degree focus point irregardless of how narrow the light was capable of going - which for the NightSun is 4 degrees. I believe the NightSword goes much narrower.


----------



## LED1982

BVH said:


> I believe I was assuming that for apples to apples comparison all lamp shots were made at the respective lights 4 degree focus point irregardless of how narrow the light was capable of going - which for the NightSun is 4 degrees. I believe the NightSword goes much narrower.



Oh ok got it, got excited thinking it was 4 degrees of intense center beam when I read that. When I woke up today I said to myself this light is out of my league who am I kidding, 2000 watts lol!! Back to being a spectator. For awhile I wanted to comment get-lit that you have the coolest avatar in this whole forum!


----------



## get-lit

Peak intensity falls within 1 degree, corona with 2 degrees. I'm sorry but personal issues are putting this off for a bit. LED1982 it would be a pleasure to have you visit when it gets to that stage.


----------



## Juggernaut

Any updates in the last few months? Only reason I bother signing into CPF any more lol :twothumbs


----------



## get-lit

Sorry for the delay, I didn't want to put this thread at the top of the queue without any new info. I've had no time this past year but I've recently made some headway.

The prospect of designing the boost and ignition stages of the power supply had been a bit daunting for me because electronic circuitry was not at all my strong point.

What makes it more difficult is that Xenon power supply design is practically a clandestine art; the information is not easy to come by. There are power supply design guides made available by lamp manufacturers, which provide for general outlines for specific criteria to be met, but the guides are all based on rectifying AC input into high voltage DC (commonly 400vdc) which makes things much easier down the line for the boost and ignition stages, particularly for the transition from boost stage to DC operation. There's various methods of meeting the criteria, some methods vary greatly. It's taken me time to fully understand how they all work and to understand how their advantages and disadvantages compare. I wanted to have a full working knowledge of the adopted standards and proposed solutions. I'm currently in the later stages of applying all considerations to arrive at a new ideal circuit for this unique application.

Designing and manufacturing a Xenon power supply from the ground up was not what I had in mind when I began this project. I was somewhat overwhelmed when it became apparent this would be necessary for an ideal solution to the application, but now I'm finding this to be just as fun as other aspects of the project.

As far the debate between the XSTAGE 2000W and XBO 1600 W DHP, I'm definitely confident the XSTAGE is the way to go. Hindsight, in my comparative estimations I forgot to include the fact that the marginal advantage in amps of the XBO 1600 W DHP (when powered under the same wattage) would be somewhat offset by slightly less efficiency. And a power supply that can handle the XSTAGE 2000W, can also handle a 1600W lamp.

Also, there is a specific reason why power supplies have a limited output range. As I'm designing the power supply from scratch, I have in mind a method to adapt the power supply to also be used with practically unlimited output range under max, so it would likely be useable even with 50W lamps. So I'm no longer concentrating my efforts on a single lamp.

This will be slow going for a while, as I'm still clearing up some outside things going on. I look forward to when I can ramp this project all the way up.


----------



## BVH

Thanks for the detailed update get-lit. I'm still as anxious as I've ever been for this to come to life. I'm in!


----------



## The_Driver

Nice update, but I'm left wondering how you can possibly develop this from the ground up and reach the point where it is suitable for production in any resonable time frame. Are you an electrical engineer? Why not just outsource the custom electronics to someone or some company who have experience in this field? I say this especially because of the safety concerns with high-voltage high-power electronics. The complexity seems very, very high to me.


----------



## vestureofblood

BVH said:


> It's sometimes kind of nice when a difficult choice is made for you.



Especially since going with the 1600w would probly have added more time to the project  We've all been standing by the mail box impatiently waiting for this like 6 years now LOL. Keep up the awesome work GL!


----------



## eyesonfire

I think the Nightsword Project is a long drawn out April fools joke


----------



## BVH

Oh yee of little faith....


----------



## The_Driver

Have you thought about outside funding? You could start a company, employ 1-2 people with experience and increase the speed of the development considerably. Production would require additional people anyhow if you want to supply people with their lights in a reasonable time frame. Kickstarter might be an option.

A good example of an expensive specialist tool that was funded through kickstarter is the Chronos 1.4 High-speed Camera. The minimum bid was 2499$ to get one and there were multiple more expensive options. They raised almost 500,000$.


----------



## get-lit

The_Driver said:


> Nice update, but I'm left wondering how you can possibly develop this from the ground up and reach the point where it is suitable for production in any resonable time frame. Are you an electrical engineer? Why not just outsource the custom electronics to someone or some company who have experience in this field? I say this especially because of the safety concerns with high-voltage high-power electronics. The complexity seems very, very high to me.





The_Driver said:


> Have you thought about outside funding? You could start a company, employ 1-2 people with experience and increase the speed of the development considerably. Production would require additional people anyhow if you want to supply people with their lights in a reasonable time frame. Kickstarter might be an option.
> 
> A good example of an expensive specialist tool that was funded through kickstarter is the Chronos 1.4 High-speed Camera. The minimum bid was 2499$ to get one and there were multiple more expensive options. They raised almost 500,000$.



The igniter and power supply design are actually not at all complex to me at this point. Yes there's many variables but they are second nature now. I have the schematic sorted out and I've wired up the components to run tests and determine suitable component sizes for the boost phase transition to normal operation. I already intend to outsource the igniter/PS PCB design and manufacture, but if the costs are more than I can handle, I'll go the Kickstarter route. But, if my schedule does not open up to allow me the time required to move this along much faster, I may instead open this to a collaborated project.


----------



## get-lit

eyesonfire said:


> I think the Nightsword Project is a long drawn out April fools joke



Okay I'll bite.. As you read through the thread, you'll see that improvements to the design were continual through the entire period. Sure I could have finished this project with the initial plans within the first year, but compared to the evolved plan...

1) The performance would not *remotely* compare
2) The durability would not compare
3) The weather resistance would not *remotely* compare
4) The focusing system would not compare
5) The beam adjust mechanism would not compare
6) The user operation would not compare
7) The cost would be a roughly two thousand more

*Two separate paths I had to choose from...*

1) Some people will be disappointed in the completion time due to refinement.

2) A lot of people will be disappointed they invested in something not nearly as good as an eventual second version that costs much less.

I really did not want the result of path #2 to happen, so I went with path #1.

So although I understand the frustration and amusement, I'm much more glad no one is disappointed to find themselves in boat #2. That means a lot to me, because this community means a whole lot to me.

Also in this time, I've had significant personal struggles which have forced me to put my own aspirations such as this project aside for extended periods of time. So far I've invested tens of thousands, while more than half my income I gladly give to child support which is the best investment a father could make.

*If I could start over...
*
I'd still choose path #1 but would not have discussed it during the process. It's been such an exciting endeavor, I couldn't resist sharing along the way. 

Also, much of the input I'd received along the way has really helped steer this ship in the best direction. So without feedback through the sharing of concepts and considerations, I honestly don't think I could say the result will have been as good.

The project has reached a point at which further discussion would not affect the final product. At this point everything about the project hinges on the completion of the power supply because the housing is built around it. The power supply is a huge milestone to tackle and will take more time and money. In my view, these are worthwhile sacrifices because the power supply *will be* what enables this to kick the crap out of anything this project had been geared for all along. But I promise, there will be more disappointment and amusement in the time it will take. So I suggest everyone enjoy the other areas of the forum in the meantime.


----------



## BVH

There's no other area of the forum as exciting as this thread! I am so very glad that you chose to be open to discussions and opinions of other members here. Great things come to those who wait and the NightSword WILL be Great! I'll still be the first member in-line for one when it's ready - if I'm quick enough to beat all the rest of you!


----------



## Rasher

I've just started browsing the site, came across this. Wow, just..., wow! I look forward to the end result, I am amazed at the things skilled builders can imagine and create.


----------



## karlthev

It's an amazing light in the que!



Karl


----------



## BVH

Anything new and exciting to report?


----------



## JasonOk

When and where can i buy one lol. I'll volunteer for beta or sacrifice a first born:wave::wave::wave::wave::wave:


----------



## Leica

Is it for sale?


----------



## Magio

I had forgotten all about this thread. Pretty sad there havent been any recent updates.


----------



## BVH

Hope Springs Eternal. I sure hope they become available.


----------



## Juggernaut

Making my bi yearly check in on this thread. Also a good boost to the top so any new members can see the craziness of this project. Hope things are still moving forward at some rate. :thumbsup:


----------



## Ceya!

BVH , yah still here.

Get Lit , do you. This is your project and knows what it needs.
Glad your here doing it.

Yep I'm back. 

S/F,
Ceya!


----------



## Mr. Tone

get-lit, any progress or setbacks on this project? We're all rooting for you, this is one of the coolest projects ever undertaken on CPF to my knowledge. I have a feeling BVH's Paypal has been locked & loaded for some time in case you ever have one of these badboys for sale. 😉


----------



## PhotonMaster3

I’d love to buy this too my friend!


----------



## IlluminatedOne

Don't think he is coming back, he was last on in 2018, hope i am wrong as i always wanted one of those insane lights. 

Hope he is well whatever he is doing now.


----------

