# NightSword - Portable Mega Light Idea Revisited



## get-lit (Aug 22, 2009)

A few years ago I've reviewed the latest lamps with the highest luminance in cd/cm^2 to find one that is capable of the most throw for a new portable mega light. I was most impressed with Ra's Maxablaster with a lamp having a luminance of 170,000 cd/cm^2. But I felt it could be improved because it only produced 4,000 lumen, and almost half that was not utilized because of the reflector required to handle the high amount of UV from that lamp. The reflector absorbed much of the visible light and the visible light it did produce also had poor color rendition. The lamp life lasted only a few hundred hours as well.

Here is a past thread from the last time I considered this a few years back...
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/149969

Back then I settled on the Osram XBO 500W/RC OFR lamp with a luminance of 260,000 cd/cm^2 but it soon became unavailable and I gave up for a while to wait for UHP lamps to mature. And now a few years later, we have lots of them for DLP projectors. One lamp series in particular is the Osram P-VIP 100-120/1.0 P22h DLP Lamp with 200,000 cd/cm^2. The lamp would have to be separated from it's reflector to use a high grade 9" reflector and a Thor host. It has excellent color rendition since it's for projectors, and the lamp itself produces roughly a nominal 7,000 lumen. With a lamp life of around 6000 to 8000 hours, it could possibly be doubled to 240 watts and run for 500 hours with a luminance of 400,000 cd/cm^2 and 14,000 lumen. That is the 4 times the luminance of the Osram XBO 7000 Watt! Since it's the luminance that determines the throw potential, this could be one heck of a light. The lamp is only $110.

Anyone have any other considerations?


----------



## Patriot (Aug 22, 2009)

*Re: New Portable Mega Light Idea Revisited*

Do these not count?

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/198582


----------



## get-lit (Aug 22, 2009)

*Re: New Portable Mega Light Idea Revisited*

Yes they all count and they all put out gobs of light in lumens, but I've always been interested in making the ultimate throw king - something that can out-throw everything else even if it has very meager spill. Among those, the Maxablaster has the most throw but it can be made even better with newer lamps. I want candlepower baby and that's all!


----------



## Patriot (Aug 22, 2009)

*Re: New Portable Mega Light Idea Revisited*

Unless I'm mistaken, it seems that all of these lamps are long-arc technology which wouldn't provide any throw advantage beyond the mega lights in the previous link. All I could find out about them is they they use mainly mercury gas. Also, I wasn't quite sure by what you meant by "double the wattage." Are you talking about using a ballast that instead of providing the specified 110 watts to the bulb, that a ballast is used to provide 240 watts to it instead? If that's the case, I'm not sure how the bulb would respond to that but usually the pressures would be too high. I know that some bulbs like the DL50 Fatboy can be driven at 85+W, well beyond it's 50W rating but it's an unusually robust bulb. 

Would this Osram P-VIP 100-120/1.0 P22h really provide any advantage beyond EZ78's 400W Thor HID mentioned before?

Thanks.


----------



## get-lit (Aug 22, 2009)

*Re: New Portable Mega Light Idea Revisited*

As you can see from the original discussion, I've been waiting for this UHP tech to mature for a long time. The Osram P-VIP lamps are indeed very short arc. Also the arc gap is not the only thing that determines average luminance. For instance, the luminance from Philips D2S bulbs covers a much larger area than just between the arc gap. For a given arc gap, higher pressures and certain gasses greatly reduce the luminance area and increase the average luminance that can be tightly collimated into candlepower. With a point source light, the amount of candlepower is determined by the amount of light that can be condensed into the smallest point source, and the ability of a quality parabolic reflector to collimate that point source into parallel light.

Again, the Osram P-VIP 100-120/1.0 lamp has a nominal luminance of 200,000 cd/cm^2 which is ten times the luminance of the Osram XBO 150W short arc lamp and also twice the luminance of the Osram XBO 7,000W short arc lamp!

Besides two very specialized lamps, there are no other lamps I have found with nearly anything close to the luminance of the Osram P-VIP 120. Among the only two specialized that do, one no longer exists (Osram XBO 500W/RC OFR already discussed) and the other (used in the Maxablaster) is *very* inefficient, short-lived, produces more UV than visible light, and has to be used with an inefficient reflector.

I agree that it's really pushing it to double the power to the lamp, even if it's nominal power is somewhat underrated. If the DL50 can be driven another 70%, it is surely feasible to drive the Osram P-VIP 120 50% more to 180W with an output of 10,500 lumen and an average luminance of 300,000 cd/cm^2. That by far exceeds even any specialized short arc, high luminance lamps available today.

Although the Par64 400W Thor HID puts out a lot of light, it's luminance is nowhere near this league. I doubt it's even 20,000 cd/cm^2. It can't produce the kind of tightly collimated light that I'm trying to achieve in order to make candle power. If you look at the beam shot, you can see how the light from the Par64 400W Thor HID is not tightly collimated like the Maxablaster's light...

400 HID Thor






Ra's Maxblaster





At 3.5 Miles...


----------



## get-lit (Aug 22, 2009)

*Re: New Portable Mega Light Idea Revisited*

As a side note, the reason I prefer a small powerful beam over a tons of light with lots of spill is because when shining the light at distance, spill light can obscure your acuity of the illuminated target object at distance. I really only want the distant target object illuminated so that it's reflected light is most easily seen without being washed out by any spill light.

Also, I'd really like to know what the luminance values are for the higher wattage Osram P-VIP lamps. Only the 120W version is listed at 200,000 cd/cm^2. It would be great if a 300W+ lamp had the nearly the same or (cross my fingers) more luminance, but I kind of doubt it because their luminance would be advertised instead of the 120W version. But just maybe.

Anyone know of a way to find out other than buying them all?


----------



## Patriot (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: New Portable Mega Light Idea Revisited*

Thanks for the explanation get-lit. That looks like an amazing lamp!


----------



## get-lit (Aug 23, 2009)

*Re: New Portable Mega Light Idea Revisited*

My pleasure. If it's as successful as I anticipate, maybe I'll call it the NightSword :rock:


----------



## ez78 (Aug 23, 2009)

Go for it man! I'd love to see Maxablaster get spanked.  

So, do you know if the bulb can be removed from the reflector without breaking it, or is there a version without the reflector also? Do you have access to machining services? I think you would have to design and build your own bulb base with very precise three-axial adjustments like in the MB. Hmm, then the ballast, I quess you could rip one out of a projector. This kind of project takes very much time and effort for sure.


----------



## get-lit (Aug 23, 2009)

You could pick up an older used projector that is compatible with this lamp for around $100, but the igniter would require AC to function so a separate DC-powered igniter would have to be purchased.

For ultimate portability and efficiency, it may be a lot better to do away with getting a projector and make a li-poly battery pack that closely matches the lamps operating voltage of 65 volts, get an efficient DC current-limiting voltage regulator circuit as the power supply, and then get a DC powered igniter with a voltage of 15kV-18kV. The power supply would regulate current to 1.85A and voltage to 65V for nominal power with a 6,000 hour lamp life and 2.75A for 50% overdriven power.

The power supply could be cheap relatively speaking since 200W is pretty low for a short arc lamp. Nothing like what they cost for the bigger ones like 5000W.

I think the most difficult part would be making a lamp base to secure the lamp and micro-align it. It would need to be able to make micrometer adjustments.

As far as the lamp itself, I do not know much about it except that it's got the kind of luminance I want and it also happens to be efficient in the visible light spectrum and lasts a whopping 6,000 hours. With all those pluses, there's got to be a way to extract the reflector. It would be nice if the lamp's reflector is a separate piece that can be easily removed or cut away, but I really don't know. It may need some delicate dremel service.

I actually have too many other things going on to pursue this now, and that's part of the reason why I'm outlining the plans here, as I would like to enable anyone else to give it a shot.


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 1, 2009)

Ummmm… This would be the most EPIC light ever….. Normally one tries to make comparison about stuff like this, like that light would be a Bugatti veyron if it was a car but…..That’s not right. Perhaps I’m to much of a Flashaholic but if this light works out like it should I would rather have the Night Sward over a real Bugatti veyron! In fact I can’t think of much that would be more impressive then a flashlight that can hit stuff at 12+ miles! Talk about an empowering felling:devil:. You could point this thing off Cape Cod and F-ing hit Nantucket island! People would literally **** themselves their! You could hit South America from Aruba!


----------



## get-lit (Sep 4, 2009)

HOLY SCARY!!! UHP Lamps are pressurized to around 3000 PSI in!!! oo: And I thought the Osram Xenon XBO lamps were dangerous. The pressure is primarily used to enable smaller the arc with higher average luminance.

For anyone that wants to work with one of these, safety must be the primary concern. Definitely no cheap plastic reflectors here!


----------



## get-lit (Sep 8, 2009)

Juggernaut said:


> ...In fact I can’t think of much that would be more impressive then a flashlight that can hit stuff at 12+ miles!...


 
Although it may put out 4 times the lumen of the Maxablaster when considering reflector efficiency, the lamp only has 15% more average luminance than the Maxablaster's lamp. With the Maxablaster being effective to 3.5 miles, I don't suspect that this new light will quite reach 5 miles. It's the luminance that mostly determines the throw. All of the additional lumen will only better illuminate within that range.


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 9, 2009)

get-lit said:


> Although it may put out 4 times the lumen of the Maxablaster when considering reflector efficiency, the lamp only has 15% more average luminance than the Maxablaster's lamp. With the Maxablaster being effective to 3.5 miles, I don't suspect that this new light will quite reach 5 miles. It's the luminance that mostly determines the throw. All of the additional lumen will only better illuminate within that range.


 
Oh no, a light that can only hit stuff 5 Miles away! Still good enough for me:twothumbs. You could still hit Martha’s vineyard from cap code.


----------



## SunFire900 (Sep 9, 2009)

Yeah, but you couldn't tell the difference between a semi and a Smart Car at that distance! Very cool, though.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 9, 2009)

Since the pressures of these lamps is super high, I decided I wouldn't overdrive these lamps +50%. I'd stick with +25% or more likely +20%. So the revised estimated overdriven specs would be 8400 lumen and 240,000 cd/cm^2 at 145W.

Also, I'm reconsidering which lamp variant to use because the 120W with 200,000 cd/cm^2 luminance may be past the point of diminishing returns of the compromise between luminance and lumen. Heck even the most bad azz Xenon 10,000 Watt search lights have a luminance of half that.

The question I find myself asking is, would I prefer to have a fair amount of light that extends way beyond practicality, or a TON more light that extends not as far but still beyond practicality?

With this question in mind, here's the other lamp I'm considering...

OSRAM VIP R 273/45 4008321039989

Nominal Specs:
270W
17,000 lm
100,000 cd/cm2
1000 hours

Estimated +20% overdriven specs:
325W
120,000 cd/cm2
20,400 lm
600 Hours

That's 2.4 times the amount of light than the overdriven 120W, with a potential throw distance still greater than the XBO 10,000W. Basically, it's a LOT more light than the 120W while still throwing beyond a practical distance. Look at the specs of all the XBO search lamps...
http://www.msscientific.de/xenon_lamps.pdf

You can see that the overdriven OSRAM VIP R 273/45 has more lumen than the XBO 700W and more luminance than the XBO 8000W. I'd say it's a great compromise over the 120W VIP. Any thoughts?


----------



## ez78 (Sep 9, 2009)

I would not want to start this kind of project with a dremel job. The OSRAM VIP R 273/45 comes with a reflector but there should also be a version without reflector the VIP S 273/26. Finding a good lamp is still kind of easy compared to the design work needed to put the optics and mechanical/electrical stuff together. Any idea yet which reflector you might use?


----------



## get-lit (Sep 9, 2009)

Thanks so much for that info! That lamp is exactly what is needed! There is very little info out there on that particular lamp but here's a google translation of some very useful specs...

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lampa28.ru%2Fosram%2FVIP.htm&lp=ru_en&.intl=us&fr=yfp-t-501

Hidden in that link is a *special surprise*... the most interesting lamp I've yet seen, the *VIP S 1200/41* with a *nominal 110,000 cd/cm^2 average luminance* and *110,000 lumen*. It's luminous efficacy is *92 lumen/W*!!! That's more light than the XBO 2500W with the average luminance matching the XBO 8000W. With a luminous efficacy of 92, it wouldn't produce as much heat as most other lower watt solutions. This is the only lamp I've seen that doesn't sacrifice efficiency for luminance. If something were to be made with this lamp, it would trump everything period.

Back to reality for now. Regarding the reflector, I would have to re-check my old notes. I had a particular reflector planned before from a scientific optical company, maybe Melles Griot but I'm unsure at the moment. In order to take full advantage of the power of these luminance values, the reflector could not be compromised. As one would guess that translates into money. Expect to pay well over $400 for the reflector alone.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 9, 2009)

Hmm, one could get 1480 watt hours with just two TP5000-10SXV Li-Pos, which would be enough to power the VIP S 1200/41 and ballast for 15 minutes...
http://thunderpowerrc.com/html/extreme-V2.html


----------



## get-lit (Sep 9, 2009)

Time to review ballast options. The simplest would be a current limiting DC/DC converter and an igniter circuit. I was also concerned that these might require alternating current, and now I see that they do. I'm not sure of the alternating frequency they require. I had read that feeding DC power to UHP lamps made for AC only has a minor affect on lamp life, but that needs to be looked into as well.


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 10, 2009)

I would still stand behind the “unpractical “max” throw” bulb even if it’s only 8,500 lumens, I’m not sure of the kind of lights you have access to but I personally have a 25,000-29,000 lumen light which throws over a mile, but to be honest I get a lot more joy using one of my super throwers “like the cardboard hexagon light” they both have similar throw but the feeling of having a super intense small spot is just much more entertaining:thumbsup: then a very large hotspot that just sort of lights everything up. Remember using the word “unnecessary” or “unpractical” throw “to the point were obviously you can’t even see were it’s going” isn’t that insane, remember 8,500 lumens is like a barn burner and the throw from a 120,000 cd/cm2 bulb is still insane, so I would go for the longest throwing light possible. When your finished with it if you go for the max output you will probably always say to yourself “yah it’s sick, but it could have throw farther:mecry:” while the worst that can happen with the other light orientated for max throw all you can say it “to bad it could have been more powerful“, but there would already be more powerful lights built, the 400 watt Thor light is like 36,000 lumens! And 20,400 is not even close. Granted it would easily out throw the Thor 400 watt:thumbsup:, but potentially the Ra's Maxablaster could still out throw the OSRAM VIP R 273/45. I’d what to know I had the absolute longest throwing light in the entire world hands down:twothumbs! _But that‘s just me._ “I wander what the cd/cm2 the Luxor hotel in Vegas is:thinking:?


----------



## SunFire900 (Sep 10, 2009)

The light is actually generated with 39 individual Xenon lamps that cost $1,200 each and last about 2000 hours. Each lamp is equivalent to 7000 watts and the total light output is rated at 30.2 billion lumens, or 40 billion candlepower. The lamp room can get upwards of 136 degrees when all the lights are on.

All our lights are like candles compared to this sucker. Be hard to carry around, though.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 10, 2009)

Thanks for the input. Decisions, decisions.

Here's another consideration that I have been thinking about. It's perfectly in line with your question about the Luxor hotel. *The lamps at the luxor hotel don't have a luminance even close to 200,000 cd/cm^2.* I don't know what kind of lamps they are using, but if they were using the best XBO 7,000W lamps, the luminance is half that. It only takes a fraction of 200,000 cd/cm^2 to reach the clouds, but for observable distances, it also takes lumens to have any impact. This is where my consideration comes in to play. When you are trading lumen for luminance, at some point there becomes a point of deminishing returns. Case in point, when combined, the 39 XBO 7000 lamps all still have 100,000 cd/cm^2 average luminance, but they have a total whopping 13,650,000 lumen!

Let's compare two examples... one being 110,000 lumen from an area small enough to produce an average luminance that is as good as the very best industrial search lights that have ever been available at 110,000 cd/cm^2. The luminance of that lamp is plenty more than enough to produce a tight beam of light straight to the clouds, and it also has more than enough light in lumen to light up the clouds.

Then another example would be a lamp with nearly 1/16th the light output and double the average luminance. It too would reach the clouds, but instead of lighting them up, it would create a laser-like circle on them instead of lighting them up.

The key consideration is that... a 7,000 lumen light with 200,000 cd/cm^2 luminance will be able to place more light upon an object beyond a determined distance which we could never even see anyway, but the lamp with almost 16 times the light and 100,000 cd/cm^2 will place more light upon the objects at any observable distances whatsoever.

To reiterate the key consideration, you really have to ask yourself...

*1. Is it better to shine a tremendous amount of light to any distance which you can see the reflectance of the objects?*

*2. Is it better to shine only 1/16th as much light to any distance which you can see the reflectance of the objects, but with only the knowledge that it's putting more light beyond which you can observe?*

If you want to make a light that has *much* more impact with human perception, 1 is the answer.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 11, 2009)

Here's a great example for the point I'm trying to make... The 1KW Tank light uses an XBO 1000 with 32,000 lumen and 60,000 cd/cm^2.

The *VIP S 1200/41* is the lamp of choice if you can settle for a *83% tighter beam @ **3.5 times the lumen* of this tank light = UNTOUCHABLE!!! 
*[Correction: this is before reflector sizes were considered. Please see next page. Thx.]*


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 11, 2009)

F%#&! *83%* more focused then that! 



get-lit said:


>


 
While being 3.5 times brighter…….
 
With an on board power supply “such as you mentioned” this would be the greatest light ever built in history:twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs!


----------



## get-lit (Sep 12, 2009)

Unfortunately current-regulating DC/DC converters with 100 volt output is very hard to find, and when they are found, they are either rated up to 1 watt each which would require 1,200 of them in parallel, or they are $$$$$ for higher power units. I found the Pico Electronics HPC100S which is 100v output up to 150W under ideal conditions. Figure a dependable 100W under less than ideal conditions, so you would need 12 of them at $250 each. That's $3000 just for the current-regulating DC/DC converters alone! Still need an igniter, plus $1100+ for batteries to last 15 minutes, plus roughly $500 for the reflector, and [email protected] knows how much for the lamp.

As much as this would make for the ultimate dream light, at a total cost of about $5500 to build, for me it will remain just a dream light.

The OSRAM VIP R 273/45 is looking much more like a reality. Although it would have 53% of the lumen of the tank light, it will still have a 67% tighter beam than the tank light, so overall it would still be able to put about the same amount of light upon the target at observable distances and even more light at beyond observable distances if you're still concerned about that. Plus with the same batteries mentioned, it would have over an hour run time. It may also be possible to power it from 12v auto and boat power because 270 watts doesn't require specialised alternators and cabling like 1200 watts would.

I still need to find out the AC frequency at which these lamps are to be operated, and then review a means to generate it. I read some very bad things that made me think twice about just giving these lamps DC.


----------



## DM51 (Sep 12, 2009)

Watching this thread with great interest - if you succeed with this project, it should be quite something...


----------



## ANDREAS FERRARI (Sep 12, 2009)

*Re: New Portable Mega Light Idea Revisited*



get-lit said:


> ....I prefer a small powerful beam over a tons of light with lots of spill is because when shining the light at distance, spill light can obscure your acuity of the illuminated target object at distance. I really only want the distant target object illuminated so that it's reflected light is most easily seen without being washed out by any spill light.



I think that's the "Holy Grail" to everyone in this section.

I have a nasty feeling that this thread will cost me a lot of money down the road!


----------



## Patriot (Sep 12, 2009)

get-lit said:


> I still need to find out the AC frequency at which these lamps are to be operated, and then review a means to generate it. I read some very bad things that made me think twice about just giving these lamps DC.




Did you say before that running these lamps on DC only had a minor effect on bulb life? It the effect is only minor do you think it would be worth the convenience of DC?

Thanks.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 12, 2009)

Thanks for the support everyone. It's good to know I'm not talking to myself at times.

Yes, I did read from another forum that powering these AC lamps with DC only has a minor affect on lamp life, but after doing more reading I found a couple more conflicting sources that explained that the electrodes on these lamps are designed for equally for AC. Both electrodes are supposedly the same and I know that for DC short art lamps the electrodes are designed to specifically handle DC and that it's a big issue if you reverse the polarity. Plus, I read several sources that reveal how powering short arc HID lamps with AC makes them last longer and makes them brighter with much better color. There was one source in particular that was very informational with lots of beam shot comparisons, and the beamshots alone made me realize how important it is. Wish I kept that source.

Generating AC alone is easy enough, but making it the correct frequency might be and I don't know what the right frequency is. Probably any frequency will do that is faster than our maximum temporal acuity of a around 120 Hz. I did read a suggestion that they are driven at 300 Hz which makes sense.

Comparatively, the OSRAM VIP R 273/45 would be MUCH less expensive to build and MUCH more practical to use as a functional work light. It would only need a single ThunderPower TP5000-10SXV for $550 that would power it for 1/2 hour and the single battery is only 3.3" x 1.8" x 6.5" which is plenty small enough to be mounted on or in the flashlight housing instead of a separate battery backpack. Also, the battery pack is only 2.6 lbs!!! A current-limiting DC/DC converter can be made for less than $250 and the lamp should be able to be found for around $110. The reflector and igniter would still cost the same. I expect the total for this to be around $1700. That's a lot more affordable and practical than the 1200W version at $5500, although 3 times the cost for 6.5 times the light isn't bad if you can afford it.

There is another trade-off as well between these two lamps. Although the average luminance of the two lamps are close, the luminace of the 1200W covers an area 3.7 times as large as the 270W. This essentially means that in order for equivelent collimation of these two lamps, the reflector for the 1200W lamps would have to be 3.7 times as large as for the 270W. With a 9.5" reflector, a larger portion of the luminance of the 1200W would generate spill than the 270W.


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 12, 2009)

Considering what you would get for $1,700 that’s a lot better deal then similar prices for Maxabeams and PH45s. Obviously this light won’t have the ruggedness of those lights, but performance wise nothing will come close to this light:twothumbs.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 12, 2009)

As a side note, there is one thing I will miss about lamps designed specifically for DC with an anode and a cathode. The anode is much larger than the cathode and luminance distribution directs more of the light into the reflector than an AC lamp would. I think the end result for DC lamps with dedicated anodes and cathodes would be roughly a 15% greater light utilization for deep reflectors and more like 25% greater for shallow reflectors.

This will make the reflector decision a bit more critical because the trade-off between the more effective collimation of longer focal lengths versus the greater light gathering ability of deeper reflectors will be more difficult to balance than with DC short arc lamps. Fortunately, the arc is so small with the VIP 273 lamp, that for a 9.5" reflector, we can use a shorter focal length with a deeper reflector to gather more of it's light with no adverse affect on collimation.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 12, 2009)

Juggernaut said:


> Considering what you would get for $1,700 that’s a lot better deal then similar prices for Maxabeams and PH45s. Obviously this light won’t have the ruggedness of those lights, but performance wise nothing will come close to this light:twothumbs.


 
Oh trust me, if I built it, it WILL be rugged. I might not be satisfied with the un-optimal fit of the battery and ballast on a Thor host, and I may build it from scratch out of aluminum so that all the compnents fit nicely in a single enclosed package. I would also like to make it water resistant for inclement weather, so the air vents would have to be made with a trap and filter design.


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 12, 2009)

get-lit said:


> Oh trust me, if I built it, it WILL be rugged. I might not be satisfied with the un-optimal fit of the battery and ballast on a Thor host, and I may build it from scratch out of aluminum so that all the compnents fit nicely in a single enclosed package. I would also like to make it water resistant for inclement weather, so the air vents would have to be made with a trap and filter design.


 
Please, Please! if you ever build one keep all the blueprints around because someday I hope to halve enough money to buy a light like this.
 
This is definitely my dream light:twothumbs “excluding ones that defy the laws of physics”.


----------



## TOQ (Sep 12, 2009)

Several years ago I was able to gain immeasurable lumenistic prolongens by switching over to 2<x3=Y2K2-/+.006 type rastifiable CQWs. Nothing but copious amounts of conglongaformuns came from this experiment and I have never looked back, or forward again. Seemingly there is always somebody out there that can come up with a better formula for extracting the utmost lumens from their megatsunaministic torches but for the rest of us uneducated, lowbrow beer drinkers, we cannot figure out how they do it......

Not to fear, they will always be there so I figure, "What, me worry?" Heck no, I just have to figure out how to decipher it all. And sadly I don't do a very good job at that anymore..................

BTW, just yanking your chains a bit here, pay no attention to me, my limited knowledge prevents me from even getting involved in these high tech discussions but at least I can hopefully get a few laughs in from my antics here...............Ha~

Light me up Scotty.............Only do it easily and quickly cause I burn fast.......


----------



## DM51 (Sep 12, 2009)

TOQ said:


> copious amounts of...
> Light me up Scotty...


LOL. It certainly sounds as if you have absorbed copious amounts of something or other, and are well lit up. Oh, these Saturday nights!


----------



## get-lit (Sep 13, 2009)

Thanks for the humor TOQ. The excesses of light and liquor seem to go hand in hand, hence my screen name.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 13, 2009)

Well, I was just about to give up on this because building a DC ppowered for AC VIP lamps was becoming too much work for me, and I didn't want to buy a projector to use it's ballast because I didn't think I would be able to integrate with proprietary control circuits...

 *Great news! Osram makes stand-alone ballasts!!! AND, they are TINY!!! AND, they are CHEAP!!!* Bad news is that they are 110v AC powered. There are two possibilities though...

1. Hopefully, the ballasts convert 110v AC to 110v DC with a rectifier before current regulation and lamp control occurs. If that is the case, the rectifier can be bypassed and the ballast can be powered by a 110v DC battery. That would make for a very tiny package that could be powered by both an AC outlet and a 110v battery! The downside is that it still wouldn't be able to be powered by a 12v DC source like a car or boat. A DC/DC converter would still have to be purchased, but it wouldn't have to be current regulating because the Osram ballast would handle that.

2. The other option is to use the Osram ballast as is. For 110v AC wall power, just plug the sucker in. For 12v DC portability, just get a small power inverter. The ballast might require a clean AC signal, so a sine-wave inverter may have to be used. Mayeb even just a modified sine-wave inverter will work. 300W sine-wave inverters an be very small and just over a lb. The battery pack would also be 12v.

Here's a bunch of Osram ballasts for VIP lamps on ebay...
http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=%2Bosram+%2Bvip&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=&_sop=12

Just not sure yet which is suitable for VIP 273 Lamps.

Here's a good comparison of some modified sine-wave inverters (2 pages)...
http://site.invertersrus.com/pdf/Inverters_R_Us_400wattcomparison_chart.pdf


----------



## Patriot (Sep 13, 2009)

get-lit said:


> Here's a bunch of Osram ballasts for VIP lamps on ebay...
> http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=+osram++vip&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=&_sop=12
> 
> Just not sure yet which is suitable for VIP 273 Lamps.




I own the Vector converter and one very similar to the Power bright that's 300W. I like the Vector though because it's smaller. Sounds like you're making some good headway.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 13, 2009)

I just picked up a small 300W with 900W peak on ebay for $20 plus shipping. I don't know the brand but it's item #320419351099. It's under 2lbs and 6.10" x 2.87" x 2.87". 90% rate efficiency, so more like 85% at peak power like most other decent units.

Among the ones on that chart, the Vector did look the most useful because it's small and efficient. The Xantrex 400 also looked good.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 13, 2009)

Considering that the ballast likely has a 10% loss, a 270W lamp would require 300W. If the ballast's rectifier were to be bypassed for battery power, then the total power requirment would be 300W, but again the battery pack would have to be 110v-120v. That's not a problem for li-po batteries. That can be accomplished with 3 Thunder Power TP5000-10SXV packs in series. There may be some special precautions for wiring li-pos in series. Such a battery pack would weigh under 8 lbs and run the light for 1.85 hours.

For going the inverter route, there is an additional efficiency loss that depends upon the inverter efficiency. Typical efficiencies are 90% at 1/3 load and 85% at full load. So when using a 300W inverter at full load, the total power consumption is going to be 345W. If a 900W+ inverter were used, the total power consumption would be 330W, but the larger inverter size wouldn't justify the 15W savings.

In the end, using an inverter with the Osram VIP ballast isn't the most efficient route with a total lamp powering efficiency of 75%, but I think that the trade-offs might be worth it because have the ability to power the light from 12v sources and 120v wall sources. Plus, the cost is under $150 for all of the electronics and a battery is optional instead or required.

I need to determine the correct Osram ballast for the VIP S 273/26 lamps and I also need to locate a source for the lamps that doesn't charge 4 to 10 times what they should sell for. I might open an account with Osram using my business license and see how low I can get cost down to for everyone that's interested.

If we can get the lamp for $100, the ballast for $50, the lamp base for $10, the inverter for $20, the reflector for $450, and a host and extras for $100, that's a *total of only $730* with optional batteries being extra.


----------



## Patriot (Sep 13, 2009)

get-lit said:


> Considering that the ballast likely has a 10% loss, a 270W lamp would require 300W. If the ballast's rectifier were to be bypassed for battery power, then the total power requirment would be 300W, but again the battery pack would have to be 110v-120v. That's not a problem for li-po batteries. That can be accomplished with 3 Thunder Power TP5000-10SXV packs in series. There may be some special precautions for wiring li-pos in series. Such a battery pack would weigh under 8 lbs and run the light for 1.85 hours.




Please help me to understand the necessity of 110v-120v battery pack. Doesn't even a 12v input get bumped to 110v-120v by the inverter? Have you priced the batteries that you proposed? You're looking at $1500 just in batteries. There must be some way around this voltage issue. It seems to me that a 4S 10A li-po like this would work.


----------



## Patriot (Sep 13, 2009)

get-lit said:


> If the ballast's rectifier were to be bypassed for battery power, then the total power requirment would be 300W, but again the battery pack would have to be 110v-120v.




Ok, I think I understand now. Still, that seems like an extreme option considering the voltage required. Not to mention that at 3.7V per cell your total voltage would fall to 111v, giving you a working voltage of 4.2v-3.7v or a .5v window. You'd almost have to run 4 x 10S packs an then regulate it to 110v-120v in order to stay above the required working voltage for the full discharge capacity of the cells. That seems enormously complex for not much more benefit. 




P.S. can you please link the reflector that you're looking at....thanks* *


----------



## get-lit (Sep 13, 2009)

Yes, that's why I opted for an inverter connected to the ballast instead. It's an extra component, but it's very cheap, and it allows for the use of a 12v power source. I never considered this before because the system would comprise two switching stages with losses, both of which add considerably to the overall bulk, but when I saw how small the ballasts are for these lamps are from Osram, I reconsidered. So now, it can still be made with small components that are very inexpensive. Normally, a ballast for short arc discharge lamps are big and heavy for anything more than a few hundred watts. These little ballasts from Osram really make this all so much easier.

I'm going to review reflectors again soon. I have to go through all my old notes from years ago in order to determine what focal lengths we should be using with the luminance area of the VIP 273.

There is a direct spacial relation between luminance areas and focal lengths. With larger luminance areas, longer focal lengths are required in order to enlarge the parabola in relation to the luminance area for optimal collimation. But with longer focal lengths come shallower reflectors of a given diameter, which results in less light gathering ability. Larger diameters are less portable, so there is a trade-off between focal length, depth, and diameter. The smaller the luminance area, the less of a trade-off there is. I will dig into this again soon.


----------



## Flashanator (Sep 14, 2009)

ENOUGH!! No more posts.

You need to make this asap. 

Power baby!


----------



## get-lit (Sep 14, 2009)

Sorry Flashanator  I wish this were a faster process so that the excitement could go away well enough for me to be able to sleep at night again.

I was up all night throwing numbers around and I decided that the VIP 120 is really the way to go, but it's only available with the built-in reflector. Hopefully it's somehow extractable. I will order one, and if it's not extractable, I will contact Osram to see what their minimum order is for a run without the reflector.

The reasoning behind wanting to go with this lamp is that when this lamp is coupled with a high-grade reflector, it will be like having a 120W laser. The latest published specs actually list the luminance at 190,000 cd/cm^2 rather than 200,000 cd/cm^2. It's definitely not one of those blast-everything-in-sight lights, but it will be a throw king for sure.

Since the biggest expense is the reflector, I'll probably order both the 120W and the 273W and make real world comparisons.

I realized last night that there is a correction in comparing these with the tank light. My comparison inadvertently assumed this new light would have the same size reflector as the tank light. From what I read, the tank light is a 30" reflector. If that's true, then the tank light has a much bigger advantage in producing candlepower than I had realized.

After doing the math last night, here's how the VIP 120 would actually compare to the tank light. Since the luminance of the VIP 120 lamp is 3.166 times brighter than the tank light lamp, the reflector could be 1/3.166 as big as the tank light and still yield the same candlepower. So a 9.5" reflector is just a tad more than enough to make the VIP have the same candlepower as the tank light.

In the real world, when measuring candlepower within a half mile, the tank light will kill this light because the reading from the tank light will still include the less collimated light, but past a mile they're theoretically equal because only the collimated light will extend that far.

If this is going to be a reality soon, then I probably won't be overdriving it because I would just use the standard Osram ballast rather than making my own. The latest spec for the lamp rates it at 2000 hours rather than 6000-8000 hours, so that leaves a little less room for overdriving than I had first anticipated anyway.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 14, 2009)

I would like to get everything ASAP. I decided on a 9.5" reflector because it will be the optimal compromise between candlepower and portability with this lamp, but before I buy one, I need to determine the optimal focal length for this lamp. It would be most helpful if anyone out there had direct access to the tank light and could take very accurate measurments of the reflector's inner diameter and depth. I would also need an accurate measurment of the inner diameter of the cut-out on the back of the reflector. With these three figures, I can precisely calculate the optimal focal point and we'd be in perfect shape.


----------



## BVH (Sep 14, 2009)

I'm no expert on electronic ballasts. But I can share that most all the Chinese HID ballasts sold on Ebay have an efficiency factor of about 73 to 75%. The Osram may be different however?

Also, If you're referring to the Tank lights as the VSS-1 and VSS-3 then having had both, I can report that the VSS-1 used a 24" reflector - a butterfly shape, not round and the VSS-3 used a round reflector that, IIRC may have been a bit smaller than 24", maybe more like 18".

Although the VSS-1 bulb does not protrude thru the center of the reflector, the effective center "cutout" (non-reflective surface) area measured somewhere around 4-5 inches. The bulb was held vertically in front of the reflector so not only was the 4-5" cutout a dead zone, but a significant amount of the entire vertical center section of the reflector was also a dead zone. So despite being rated at 24", the effective reflector was way, way less.

IIRC, the VSS-3 bulb did protrude thru the center and it's cutout was somewhere around 3-4 inches.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 14, 2009)

So the tank light reflector was only 24", and limited at that. Well that's a game changer. I thought the 36" figure seemed excessive. Now the effective collimation that we can expect with the relative reflector size in relation to luminous area is much smaller. That allows us to go with an even smaller and possibly deeper reflector. Heck, if we went with an 8.5" reflector with the VIP 120, we would still have 5 times the effective collimation than the tank light, and if we were to use the VIP 273 with that same 8.5" reflector, we would have the same effective collimation as the tank light at 24".

So here's our choices now...

*1. VIP 120 with 8.5" reflector having 1/4 the amount light as the tank light, with 5x the effective collimation of the tank light.*

*2. VIP 273 with 8.5" reflector having 1/2 the amount light as the tank light, with the same effective collimation of the tank light.*

*3. VIP 1200 with 15" reflector having 3.7x the amount light as the tank light, with 1/3x the effective collimation of the tank light.*

Another consideration is the color temperature because they vary quite a bit. The VIP 120 is 8500K which would appear relatively brighter in the sky due to reflecting off the air, and the VIP 273 is 4700K which would be a lot more effective for penetrating the air and lighting up the target.

It's a difficult decision, but fortunately both lamps share the same 8.5" reflector so both can be tested inexpensively. Which variation seems more appealing?


----------



## BVH (Sep 14, 2009)

My all-time wish-list favorite HID color temp (that I've never been able to locate) is 4750K. I vote for the 273. Although having a collimation 5 times more than the tank light is certainly just as appealing! I guess I vote for both!


----------



## get-lit (Sep 14, 2009)

Here's how they should compare...

Tank Light, VIP 273, VIP 120


----------



## get-lit (Sep 15, 2009)

Found the old notes from 2007 and 2002. My plan back then was to use the XBO 500. Below is the optical design. The light blue area is the luminance distribution pattern of the lamp. As can be seen, DC short arc lamps have the advantage of directing almost 100% of the usable light into the reflector when well optimized. The reflector is 10.85" diameter by 6" deep with a 1.3" focal length. This would be very similar to the Sprectrolab Nightsun SX-5 with a rated candlepower of 15M and an actual candlepower of 30M. This old plan would have made for a 25M candlepower light.






If the specs for the VIP lamps are correct, the new plan with the VIP 273 should produce 35M candlepower with less power and a smaller reflector, and the VIP 120 should produce 55M candlepower in a very narrow beam. I should arrive at an optimal focal length soon


----------



## get-lit (Sep 15, 2009)

I decided to go with the Melles Griot part# "RPM-241.3-33.0", formerly part# "02 RPM 018" which the Maxablaster uses. It too happens to have a 33mm focal length. It's a 9.5" diameter reflector and it fits in the Platinum Thor 15M for those who might want to use that as a host. The reflector is currently listed for $630. The extra inch of diameter will give the estimations a good boost to boot...

http://www.cvilaser.com/Catalog/Pages/Template1.aspx?pcid=1698&filter=0

If anyone wants to get super crazy, there's a 14" for $880 to get another 47% boost LOL.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 15, 2009)

Here's an incredible article from 2005. It's the most informational source. Because UHP lamps are AC, there are two hot spots within the luminance area, one at each electrode. This is a drawback compared to DC short arc xenon lamps. Fortunately the smallest arc gap UHP lamps tend to merge the hot spots into one hot spot. This is why the VIP 120 may end up being the best performer even though it has 42% of the lumen of the VIP 273.

http://thomann.net/uhp.pdf


----------



## Patriot (Sep 15, 2009)

Since the a large purpose of this idea is still maximum throw, I'm going to have to vote for the VIP120 despite the 8500K. 1/4 the amount of light as what the Tank Light produces is still extraordinary. 



Get-lit, can you also give me some rough idea of how a 5" reflector would perform with the VIP120 as compared to the others? How much less collimation would it achieve vs. 8.5" reflector. 

Thanks


----------



## Sway (Sep 15, 2009)

Please forgive me if I missed it but from I can find the burn position for the VIP series lamps is +/- 15 deg from horizontal, while not ideal but still useable at ground level and higher targets as distance increases, any thoughts. 

Kelly


----------



## get-lit (Sep 15, 2009)

Patriot said:


> Since the a large purpose of this idea is still maximum throw, I'm going to have to vote for the VIP120 despite the 8500K. 1/4 the amount of light as what the Tank Light produces is still extraordinary.
> 
> Get-lit, can you also give me some rough idea of how a 5" reflector would perform with the VIP120 as compared to the others? How much less collimation would it achieve vs. 8.5" reflector.
> 
> Thanks


 
Collimation ability is solely determined by the relation of the parabolic reflector focal distance and the lamp luminance area. Longer focal distances enlarge the size of the reflector in relation to the luminance area, which in turn decreases the overall angle of incidence to the target, thus increasing collimation. If you are interested reading more about the relation of collimation to luminance areas, look up the formula for calculating etendue in the article I just posted.

Candlepower is then a factor of the amount of light contained within that luminance area by the collimation ability, and also by the percentage of light gathered by the reflector. 

For any given lamp, the net capability of the light is determined by the total reflector diameter because larger reflectors allow for both longer focal lengths to enlarge the parabola in relation to the lamp's luminance area, and reflector depth to capture more of the lamp's total light output in lumen according to the lamp's luminance pattern. So there is always an optimal point in the trade-off between light-gathering ability and collimation for any given reflector diameter. For instance for a reflector of a given diameter, if the collimation is doubled by doubling the parabola size by doubling the focal length, and if the result of the more shallow reflector halves the light-gathering ability, then the net effect upon candlepower is nil. Of course the effect of light gathering ability depends upon the luminance distribution pattern of the lamp. I had a diagram of the pattern for UHP lamps but I lost it.

To answer your question, reducing the reflector from 8.5" to 5" will result in a 58.8% loss of candlepower, assuming that you would be decreasing the focal length proportionately to reduce the size of the parabola while maintaining the same light-gathering ability. If you do not change the focal length proportionately, then you would also be affecting the light-gathering ability and you would then also have to consider how the reduction would affect light gathering ability depending upon the lamp's luminance distribution pattern.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 15, 2009)

Sway said:


> Please forgive me if I missed it but from I can find the burn position for the VIP series lamps is +/- 15 deg from horizontal, while not ideal but still usable at ground level and higher targets as distance increases, any thoughts.
> 
> Kelly


 
Lamps made for movie projectors have tight tolerances in order to maximize lamp life to thousands of hours in order to be practical for movie projectors. For a portable search light, we only need a few hundred hours. Incandescent flashlights often last only a hundred hours but we don't notice.

The VIP 120 is rated for 2000 hours and can be had for $110. In comparison the Maxabeam 75W Xenon (which this will obliterate) is rated for just 400 hours for big $$$. I have no issue running the VIP 120 vertically.

I may even try driving the VIP 120 with the ballast made for the VIP 180


*EDIT:* After reading into this more, I decided against over driving these lamps. Here's my suggestions...

- Drive them as rated.

- Use forced cooling.

- Be mindful of how much you operate them vertically.

- Never operate them vertically for a continuous prolonged time because the internal convections will not cool the lamp as effectively, although momentary vertical orientation shouldn't hurt.

- If you operate them vertically frequently, replace them at a fraction of their rated life.

- Watch for signs of end of life such as hard starts, sudden color shifts, loss of brightness, and excessive flickering.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 15, 2009)

Uh oh :shrug: Philips is now making a newer G3 UHP lamp with smaller arcs???

http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_...parent=6450&id=gl_en_projection_lamps&lang=en

I can't find any more info. I'm sending off an email to the address listed there for more info, and hopefully specs.

Edit: Another article lists the following dealers...
http://www.projectorlampexperts.com/
http://www.advanced-inc.com/


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 15, 2009)

Oh GoD, Oh god, I’m an actually laughing out loud at this thread, it is decided, even if I don’t win the lottery, Some day I WILL build this light with the VIP120 and the 14 inch reflector…..135,000,000 candle power WILL Be Mine! 

Oh, sorry about my crazed rant, this is the most exited I have ever gotten over something on CPF:twothumbs, I vote for you to use the VIP120:twothumbs, I love your photo shop of the beams, but it looks like you simply cut off the edges of the original tank light beam in order to make the VIP120 profile, wouldn’t it more or less be a solid white line:thinking:, it appears to slightly dim towards the top of the picture, wouldn’t it be more intense at the top of the picture then the regular tank light’s beam is at the bottom? 

Here I modified your original to make it a proximity 5x more intense. Click to see larger.


----------



## BVH (Sep 15, 2009)

OK, not to claim braggers rights but.........OK, I will, just this time. I recently sold my 800,000,000 TRUE CP flashlight. Wasn't very portable, though.It was claimed that one could read a newspaper at 5.7 miles.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 15, 2009)

Juggernaut said:


> Oh GoD, Oh god, I’m an actually laughing out loud at this thread, it is decided, even if I don’t win the lottery, Some day I WILL build this light with the VIP120 and the 14 inch reflector…..135,000,000 candle power WILL Be Mine!
> 
> Oh, sorry about my crazed rant, this is the most exited I have ever gotten over something on CPF:twothumbs, I vote for you to use the VIP120:twothumbs, I love your photo shop of the beams, but it looks like you simply cut off the edges of the original tank light beam in order to make the VIP120 profile, wouldn’t it more or less be a solid white line:thinking:, it appears to slightly dim towards the top of the picture, wouldn’t it be more intense at the top of the picture then the regular tank light’s beam is at the bottom?
> 
> Here I modified your original to make it a proximity 5x more intense. Click to see larger.


 
To be honest, that is likely more visually accurate than mine, but I purposely made it a bit subdued so that people would actually believe it and not write this off as just a bunch of talk.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 15, 2009)

BVH said:


> OK, not to claim braggers rights but.........OK, I will, just this time. I recently sold my 800,000,000 TRUE CP flashlight. Wasn't very portable, though.It was claimed that one could read a newspaper at 5.7 miles.


 
Bragging rights are definitely deserved there. What was the light??? Also, I believe that candlepower measurements should be taken at a far enough distance so that the reading doesn't include the incident light from up close that doesn't actually contribute to true throw.


----------



## BVH (Sep 15, 2009)

This little gem. The government rated it so it is probably fairly accurate.

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/170556&highlight=carbon


----------



## get-lit (Sep 16, 2009)

um.. you have more money than me.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 16, 2009)

I'm so angry at myself for loosing that distribution pattern I came across for the the VIP lamps! I came across it accidentally before and so I thought it would be easy to find again and now it's nowhere to be found. This is the cross-sectional profile of the far-field radiation distribution pattern of relative intensity vs. angle as a polar plot. I *REALLY* need this to fully optimize the reflector dimensions for these lamps. If I never find it again, I do recall it fairly well. It was something like this...







Notice it's much different from the "butterfly" profile of the DC short arc Xenon lamps. If I had an accurate polar plot with luminance values per angle, I could precisely determine the optimal reflector dimensions in which the balance between reflector focal length and reflector depth yield the most candlepower. i.e., finding the focal length at which collimation and light gathering ability compromise one another the least.


----------



## Flashanator (Sep 16, 2009)

What would the weight & dimensions of this be? Can you draw up a sketch in paint?


----------



## DM51 (Sep 16, 2009)

get-lit said:


> I'm so angry at myself for loosing that distribution pattern I came across for the the VIP lamps... It was something like this...


I think *this* was the pic you were looking for, lol


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 16, 2009)

DM51 said:


> I think *this* was the pic you were looking for, lol


 
I don’t know that looks kind of dim…. 

By the way do you have any idea how large the reflector would have to be to beat out any, type of light “WWII search / spot lights and stuff”. It’s easy to see that BVH’s light would destroy the night sward, because it weighs thousands of pounds and used thousands of watts, but I would assume it’s cd/cm^2 would actually be less then the VIP120, I mean that carbon arc light has a 60+ inch reflector which combined with it‘s output “500,000 lumens or something” makes it much more powerful, but I wonder what it‘s cd/cm^2 is:thinking:?


----------



## get-lit (Sep 16, 2009)

DM51 said:


> I think *this* was the pic you were looking for, lol


 

I love it!


----------



## get-lit (Sep 16, 2009)

Juggernaut said:


> I don’t know that looks kind of dim….
> 
> By the way do you have any idea how large the reflector would have to be to beat out any, type of light “WWII search / spot lights and stuff”. It’s easy to see that BVH’s light would destroy the night sward, because it weighs thousands of pounds and used thousands of watts, but I would assume it’s cd/cm^2 would actually be less then the VIP120, I mean that carbon arc light has a 60+ inch reflector which combined with it‘s output “500,000 lumens or something” makes it much more powerful, but I wonder what it‘s cd/cm^2 is:thinking:?


 
The VIP 120 will never put out the kind of light like that. It is not likely that any reflector size could make the VIP 120 do that. Here's why... The reflector acts as an aperture. As the reflector gets larger, so does the area of the collimated light. You could put the VIP in a 60" diameter reflector and you will get perfect collimated light by any Earthly standard, but then the diameter of the light would be so large that rather than having a bright laser-like light that can throw, you instead have a 60" wide beam of insanely collimated light that is relatively dim because the VIP 120 is only 7,200 lumen.

So while larger reflectors increase candlepower by better collimating the light, at a certain point you begin to loose candlepower because the aperture eventually widens to a point at which the candlepower gains afforded by incrementally better collimation is negated by the brightness losses of incrementally wider apertures.

Think about it this way... at the extreme of a perfect point light source, even the smallest perfect parabolic reflector will perfectly collimate the light, and the most achievable candlepower would actually then be the smallest reflector because as the aperture widens, the brightness dims.

Roughly speaking, with the VIP 120 it's likely that you would begin losing gains past a 24" reflector give or take a fair amount. Could be less. The maximum acheivable candlepower with the VIP 120 may very well be under 100M with an 18" reflector. An 18" reflector has an aperture area of 3.6 times that of a 9.5" reflector.

The bottom line is that as modern lamp surface brightness increases, the gains of larger reflectors to collimate the light to create candlepower diminish due to larger aperture.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 16, 2009)

Ra said the Melles Griot only reflected 76% of the visible light even though it's listed at 90% because it's more efficient in the UV range. I may go with the a reflector with an aluminum based coating. For a 9.5" reflector with the luminance angular distribution pattern of these lamps, the optimum focal distance is between 1.3" (33mm) and 1.5" (38.1mm). The difference is a matter of personal choice. Please refer to the following diagram...






The 1.3" (33mm) appears to be the "safe" bet and the 1.5" (38.1mm) will be pushing the edge.

For the VIP 120, since we are only working with 7,200 lumen in a tiny luminance area, that extra 10% light of the 33mm could go a long way. That's probably what I'd go with for this lamp.

Now for the VIP 273, I'd probably go with the 38.1mm because it could really use the extra 15.38% collimation instead of the extra 10% light.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 16, 2009)

Flashanator said:


> What would the weight & dimensions of this be? Can you draw up a sketch in paint?


 
Well, the weight would depend on the host or the type of housing construction if built from the ground up. A quick safe estimate would be about 1.5 times the weight of the Platinum Thor, and also lighter since it could be also operated by a 12v and 120v source without batteries if one chooses.

Probably 10 lbs without batteries and another 1.7 lbs for two 11.1v 5000 mAh Li-Po batteries that would last 74 minutes for the VIP 120 or 30 minutes for the VIP 273.


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 16, 2009)

get-lit said:


> The VIP 120 will never put out the kind of light like that. It is not likely that any reflector size could make the VIP 120 do that. Here's why... The reflector acts as an aperture. As the reflector gets larger, so does the area of the collimated light. You could put the VIP in a 60" diameter reflector and you will get perfect collimated light by any Earthly standard, but then the diameter of the light would be so large that rather than having a bright laser-like light that can throw, you instead have a 60" wide beam of insanely collimated light that is relatively dim because the VIP 120 is only 7,200 lumen.





get-lit said:


> So while larger reflectors increase candlepower by better collimating the light, at a certain point you begin to loose candlepower because the aperture eventually widens to a point at which the candlepower gains afforded by incrementally better collimation is negated by the brightness losses of incrementally wider apertures.
> 
> Think about it this way... at the extreme of a perfect point light source, even the smallest perfect parabolic reflector will perfectly collimate the light, and the most achievable candlepower would actually then be the smallest reflector because as the aperture widens, the brightness dims.
> 
> ...


 

Wow, I always wondered about that, I have done some pretty impressive “not to your standards” concave mirror recoil light projects and I always wondered if I go a big enough parabolic mirror that I would end up dimming the beam because the “beam it’s self” would become to wide at it’s base. However what if you had the cross section of the beam “not sure what the technical term is, it’s were the beam first crosses over it’s self before shooting off into the distance “normally no more then 6inches to a a few feet away from the lens” well what if you stretched out this point with a massive reflector so that even if the candle power of the beam was very weak at the light, while miles away it converged at a single point instead of right next to the light. Making it’s C.P. there very high.

If you have no idea what I am talking about I made a absolutely horrible picture demonstrating my “most likely misinformed” idea. 

_Note: do not judge my intellectual capabilities on my poor picture! _
Note just about nothing is to scale in this picture:


http://img34.imageshack.us/i/verybadpictureofcpbeamd.png/


----------



## get-lit (Sep 16, 2009)

That's a convergence point. "I dont think" a parabolic reflector for parallel light can create an effective convergence point. Adjusting the focus only changes how well the light becomes parallel. You would need an elliptical reflector, but even then the convergence point is a set distance. You could use a parabolic reflector with an adjustable lens.

I got a better idea. Everyone on the forums should pick a point in the sky with a GPS in each city where they live and all shine their little LED lights at the same point at the same time. Nobody else would know where the big glow in the sky was coming from :twothumbs


----------



## get-lit (Sep 17, 2009)

Bad news. The VIP 120 R ain't going to fly. I took a close look at my movie projector lamp that also has a built-in reflector and that reflector isn't going anywhere period. That's very disappointing. It really was the dream lamp.

I contacted Philips and Osram and they are under strict license agreements to supply lamps *only* for projectors and they will not work with any company wanting to use them for anything other than projectors. They won't even provide any details about any of the lamps. So at this point, the new Philips 3G UHP lamps are out and we can forget a special run of the VIP 120 without built-in reflectors.

On the bright side, we still have the VIP 273 S that comes standard without the reflector. Although it has 4.5 times the luminance area, almost half the average luminance, the VIP 273 S will still put out a lot more medium range light and is on par for throw with the XBO 1600 (when using the same reflector). The VIP 273 in a portable 10 lb. package with just a 9.5" reflector should achieve a real 25-30M candlepower and I'm happy with that. And the color temp is perfect. Just need to find a supplier. I will call around next.

By the way, when contacting anyone for these lamps, do NOT let them know that it's not for a projector. I got a sense that these are like the industry's drugs. As soon as I started asking questions, I got the third degree with questions like "do you have one now?" "where did you get it from?" "who gave it to you?" "why do you want it?". These lamps have been made very inexpensive in order to suit the OEM projector industry and they tend to put the industry's thousand dollar short arc Xenon lamps to shame so I think that's why they're limited to just projector use.

I'm likely going with the 33mm focal length reflector rather than the 38.1mm because lamp intensities will only improve and the 33mm focal length will be more accommodating in the future.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 17, 2009)

If we have to use the VIP 273, I might go with the a 12" reflector.

This is going to be a monster!


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 17, 2009)

Well since we lost out on the stupidly Epic max throw of the VIP120:mecry:, you might as well maximize the collimation of the VIP273 with the 12 inch reflector, that’s to bad about the VIP120 though:sigh:. I thought the Maxabeam had 30,000,000 C.P. but I must be wrong:shrug:.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 17, 2009)

Juggernaut said:


> Well since we lost out on the stupidly Epic max throw of the VIP120:mecry:, you might as well maximize the collimation of the VIP273 with the 12 inch reflector, that’s to bad about the VIP120 though:sigh:. I thought the Maxabeam had 30,000,000 C.P. but I must be wrong:shrug:.


 
Maxabeam - 7.5M C.P.

Maxablaster (9.5" reflector) = 52M C.P.

VIP 273 (with 12" reflector) = 45M C.P. (estimated)

Keep in mind these that these estimations are based upon the reported lumen and average luminance of the VIP 273. Another important factor is the luminances of the hot spots within the luminance areas, which are unkown. What is known is that the VIP has two hot spots spaced next to each other becaue it's an AC lamp, so that will negatively affect these predictions to some degree.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 18, 2009)

Anyone like the housing diagram so far?


----------



## Patriot (Sep 19, 2009)

It looks great and I'm learning a lot from this thread thanks to you. I finally understand why the reflector hole size isn't critical in this case. 

Regarding the 12" reflector, how would you plan on housing such a beast?


----------



## Flashanator (Sep 19, 2009)

Looks super pro.

get-lit If I was a millionaire Id finance this project for you.


----------



## ez78 (Sep 19, 2009)

Very interesting, this is starting to look promising! What CAD software are you using?


----------



## get-lit (Sep 19, 2009)

Patriot said:


> It looks great and I'm learning a lot from this thread thanks to you. I finally understand why the reflector hole size isn't critical in this case.
> 
> Regarding the 12" reflector, how would you plan on housing such a beast?


 
That is one of the more difficult issues. I might go with formed steel sheet. It would be a two-step forming process. First to create the contour of the outer lamp housing, and then at the lamp end you can see how it folds back toward the front as an inner ring for the base of reflector to encircle. If that would be too costly, I could make the ring a separate part to weld on. The handle would then be welded onto the reflector housing.

I'm not much of a fan of metal housings. I much prefer something injection molded. Now carbon fiber! That would be the ticket. Problem is, that's not feasible with with a very short run. If it has to be metal, maybe I would rubberize it.

I have yet to finalize the front of the reflector housing. It will be different that other lamps though because the forced air will pass over the entire front lip of the reflector and then be re-directed toward the back where it will exit an opening on the underside. That will keep any water whatsoever from entering the front. For the rear, I would also like to include a water trap and filter so that it would be rather reliable in bad weather.

I would also like to include a means to attach a 12v battery and a small DC/AC inverter to the underside.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 19, 2009)

Flashanator said:


> Looks super pro.
> 
> get-lit If I was a millionaire Id finance this project for you.


 
Thanks a million!
EDIT: Hmm, maybe I should go for a military contract. Heck, this would have 6 times the throw and 17 times the light output of the Maxabeam, and that's got crazy contracts, heck its' even a hit in Hollywood


----------



## get-lit (Sep 19, 2009)

ez78 said:


> Very interesting, this is starting to look promising! What CAD software are you using?


 
For initial planning and illustration I just use my favorite graphics program. For specific parts to be CNC'd I would use Rhinoceros.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 19, 2009)

I had actually came up with three different methods for 3-axis adjustament with powered zoom. I picked this one because of the simplicity. It really eliminates a lot of parts and makes for a simple solid design that is waterproof and easy to make adjustments with.

As you can see, one of my primary goals is to KEEP IT SIMPLE. Once the planning is complete, it will actually be quite easy to construct.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 19, 2009)

Patriot said:


> I finally understand why the reflector hole size isn't critical in this case.


 
Yep. That is exactly why it was so important for me to see the angular luminance distribution of these lamps. Actually, for this 12" reflector, the hole could practically be twice as large with no affect on light gathering. Now if this were to be for a DC short arc Xenon lamp, you wouldn't want the hole any larger. In fact, this particular 12" reflector would be perfect as far as the rear hole size. I guess that's a good thing to know because that makes this design particularly adaptable for in case other lamps evolve with similar patterns as the DC short arc Xenon lamps.


----------



## Flashanator (Sep 19, 2009)

get-lit said:


> this would have 6 times the throw and 17 times the light output of the Maxabeam



 good lord that's ridicules. I srsly hope this gets built. Would it outthrow the maxablaster? I'm thinking yes?


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 19, 2009)

Flashanator said:


> good lord that's ridicules. I srsly hope this gets built. Would it outthrow the maxablaster? I'm thinking yes?


 
Sadly with out the VIP120 bulb it will not:mecry:.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 19, 2009)

Maxablaster (9.5" reflector) = 52M C.P.

VIP 273 (12" reflector) = 45M C.P. (estimated)

So it's 85% the throw of the Maxablaster. Still though the VIP 273 is 4.25 times the light output at any distance you can see and it's throw is 25% further than the tank light.

*Here's an important consideration...* Because the VIP 273 doesn't put out the kind of UV that the Maxablaster does, the VIP 273 might be able to use an aluminum coated with quartz film reflector with a *90% reflectance* in the visible spectrum instead of a rhodium coated reflector with *76% reflectance* in the visible spectrum. Then the VIP 273 estimations will get *another 18%* boost and the VIP 273 will have the same candlepower/throw with 5 times the visible light output as the Maxablaster.


----------



## Patriot (Sep 19, 2009)

get-lit said:


> *Here's an important consideration...* Because the VIP 273 doesn't put out the kind of UV that the Maxablaster does, the VIP 273 might be able to use an aluminum coated with quartz film reflector with a *90% reflectance* in the visible spectrum instead of a rhodium coated reflector with *76% reflectance* in the visible spectrum. Then the VIP 273 estimations will get *another 18%* boost and the VIP 273 will have the same candlepower/throw with 5 times the visible light output as the Maxablaster.





Not, a critical point but I'm just trying to follow the math. 90% vs. 76% would be a 14% variation right, or is there another factor that you're considering. I'm sure the aluminum coated reflector must be very expensive but if you can pull it off, I think it's worth it. It's free lumens and throw with nothing extra consumed.

Regarding the VIP 120. What exactly about the structure makes it impossible to separate it from it's built in reflector? Certainly a diamond coated cut off disc and die grinder would cut the material even if it was insanely tedious, no?


----------



## get-lit (Sep 19, 2009)

Patriot said:


> Not, a critical point but I'm just trying to follow the math. 90% vs. 76% would be a 14% variation right, or is there another factor that you're considering. I'm sure the aluminum coated reflector must be very expensive but if you can pull it off, I think it's worth it. It's free lumens and throw with nothing extra consumed.
> 
> Regarding the VIP 120. What exactly about the structure makes it impossible to separate it from it's built in reflector? Certainly a diamond coated cut off disc and die grinder would cut the material even if it was insanely tedious, no?


 
Percentages are multiplied. ie...

1000 lumen x 90% = 900 lumen
1000 lumen x 76% = 760 lumen

900 lumen is 1.184 times 760 lumen.

Therefore the percentage difference is 90%/76% = 118.4%, or 18.4% greater

I was hoping that the built-in reflectors were removable but they are not and it's too dangerous to tinker with cutting tools with these lamps. They are 3000 PSI!!!


----------



## get-lit (Sep 19, 2009)

I modified the diagram at bit...


----------



## get-lit (Sep 19, 2009)

I changed this one a bit. This one has everything self-contained including an integrated ballast, an DC/AC inverter, and 4 Thunder Power TP5000-3SXV batteries with a total of 222 watt hours which can power the light for 40 minutes. A bit more work to make though...






_Imagine this much power taking up just 1 cubic foot in your trunk!!!_


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 20, 2009)

Wow, that’s crazy, I say that’s a great idea:twothumbs! So basically the top part would act as a handle:thumbsup:?


----------



## get-lit (Sep 20, 2009)

Juggernaut said:


> Wow, that’s crazy, I say that’s a great idea:twothumbs! So basically the top part would act as a handle:thumbsup:?


 
A handle it is.


----------



## Patriot (Sep 20, 2009)

Instead of using the Thunder Power batteries you might want to have a look at these:

Rhino

&

Zippy Flightmax



As a li-po user for the last 6 years in the RC aircraft world I've found zero difference between the most expensive ThunderPower and FlightPower packs, and ones half their price from Zippy and Rhino. 

Beyond the price, I guess you'll have to go with what best fits the physical dimensions of your housing but I think you'll find a lot larger selection from Rhino and Zippy even if you have to up or down size in capacity some.

3500+mah and 3S packs


----------



## get-lit (Sep 20, 2009)

Thanks Patriot! Those prices sure make a self-contained version much more affordable. It looks like the dimensions are pretty similar. Probably best to make the battery compartment large enough to accommodate them all so that there's a choice.

I have yet to obtain a ballast so I don't have exact dimensions on that yet. Once I have those dimensions I can finalize the size of the electronics compartment as well.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 22, 2009)

Ok. VIP lamps are out. Period. I called two primary U.S. distributors and even Osram. Osram NO LONGER makes ANY VIP lamps without reflectors and they haven't for a long time.

Is this bad news? Well that's what I thought at first. But the answer is no. It's actually very very very great news, because it led me to find this!!!

:twothumbs Ushio UXL-502HS-0 :twothumbs
PN#5000362​ 
This is the Derek Foreal of lamps, "the answer to all your dreams" to quote the movie. This is the Ushio version of the Osram XBO 500 W/RC OFR that I was originally going to work with, but with an improvement. The Ushio version is 1200 hours instead of 200 hours. And, it's actually available. It's pricey, but it is available!

Now we're back to talking 260,000 lm/cm2 average luminance and in a DC lamp to boot! DC gives us better light gathering as well as a much better single point luminance peak instead of the two points with AC! Even if the Maxablaster lamp's average luminance were to match this lamp, the peak luminance of this lamp will be even greater than the Maxablaster lamp's peak luminance because this lamp is a Xenon lamp. This is huge. The new numbers will be simply astounding, and they will be very much underrated when compared to the Maxblaster lamp due to the differences in peak luminance that is not reflected in the estimations.

Also, since we're working with a DC output now, I plan to do away with a DC/AC inverter feeding a full rectifying power supply. I'm planning a specialized power supply that is powered directly by either a 12v battery or external 12v source. This will greatly reduce the component size and weight because no big transformers and filter capacitors will be needed anymore. I would like to just use a current regulating DC/DC converter with a DC igniter module fed directly from the 12v battery or external 12v source.


----------



## Patriot (Sep 22, 2009)

Sounds awesome! .... except for the price. But yeah, this is an improvement from where you were for sure. 

So, why did you decided against batteries housed within the light unit? If you're still looking at using a 9" or larger reflector you'll likely end up with a rather large housing regardless, in which case, why not use it for batteries?

Would 2 x 5000mah 3S lipo's in parallel work?

:wave:



*EDIT: I just noticed that the voltage is listed at 14V?

some more info...


*


----------



## get-lit (Sep 22, 2009)

Yes, I absolutely plan to include batteries in the housing, as well as a 12v DC input plug.


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 22, 2009)

:devil:Now were Talking:twothumbs!


----------



## Patriot (Sep 22, 2009)

get-lit said:


> Yes, I absolutely plan to include batteries in the housing, as well as a 12v DC input plug.




....lol, good deal. I misunderstood. 

This is an exciting development.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 22, 2009)

I would like to make the construction of the housing a process that I can duplicate. That way maybe I could offer the housings for those that would like to build their own.


----------



## BVH (Sep 22, 2009)

get-lit, you must have been reading my mind. I was just going to post the question of whether or not you were going to build and sell these lights or provide sources for the parts for others to duplicate.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 22, 2009)

Well I don't have the time to do all the work to create an actual product, and even if I did, this is something that I would like to see in the hands of the DIY'er.

Made more headway today! *I am sourcing a Xenon power supply company to develop a portable power supply with DC input!* It will require 24v input as opposed to 12v in order to be efficient and compact, so 22v Li-Po batteries will be used. The ballast will only be about 2 lbs!!! That's quite a bit down from the typical 15-35 lbs for standard AC input Xenon power supplies in this wattage.

So no huge coils! No rectifier! No huge AC filtering capacitors! No DC/AC Inverters! With a power supply weighing just 2 lbs, and enough Li-Po to power everything for an hour weighing 8.6 lbs, we're now talking just under 11 lbs for all electronics and batteries included to power the light for an hour!!!


----------



## get-lit (Sep 26, 2009)

New plan. I decided that there was just too much integrated functionality that needed to take place for making this with formed sheet metal and the only way to really do it right is to go all the way. This will take time...







The internals are revamped to make even better use of space, including the alignment assembly and the air flow. Now, the air intakes are on the sides to also make better use of space and to provide practically impenetrable protection against the rain. The intakes rise up to the middle of the unit and then back down to an air filter. Also, with the air ducting and air filters up front and the ballast and batteries in back, the overall weight balance at the handle will be perfect and everything will be much more serviceable. I also directed the exhaust out the center of the lens so that both the anode and cathode have very effective cooling, and also to provide a space for the long lamp to extend beyond the lens. This way, the overall reflector housing is much smaller as well. As you can see, by revamping the lamp alignment internals, the handle can now be made smaller and ergonomic.

Um, now here's the problem. With everything compared relatively to the Maxablaster, including average luminance, peak luminance, arc distribution, luminance area, lumen, reflector diameter, reflector focal length, and light gathering, etc, this combination produces relatively 4 times the collimated power of the Maxablaster. That means, cough cough, a conservative 100+ Million "real" CP, and dare I say possibly reaching 200 Million.


----------



## Patriot (Sep 26, 2009)

That's amazing *get lit*. For more professional and integrated than I ever would have imagined. 

Very nice work. :twothumbs


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 27, 2009)

There is no way to describe, how EPIC this “light” will be:devil::devil:, As I said earlier. It’s not like this won’t be the greatest light ever…..This may be the greatest thing I have ever seen built by any person EVER:twothumbs:twothumbs!
I’m sorry to ask a question you might have already answered, but It getting difficult to remember all the different stats for each bulb. How many Lumens is this one:thinking:? 

And if it’s 4 times more intense compared to the Maxablaster “VS. the original concept that was a mere 15% higher in average luminance……..would that not make this light potentially throw 2 miles farther then my original “_over estimated_” distance of 12 miles…So you might hit stuff at 14 miles away.…….Or more……



get-lit said:


> Although it may put out 4 times the lumen of the Maxablaster when considering reflector efficiency, the lamp only has 15% more average luminance than the Maxablaster's lamp. With the Maxablaster being effective to 3.5 miles, I don't suspect that this new light will quite reach 5 miles. It's the luminance that mostly determines the throw. All of the additional lumen will only better illuminate within that range.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 28, 2009)

Juggernaut said:


> There is no way to describe, how EPIC this “light” will be:devil::devil:, As I said earlier. It’s not like this won’t be the greatest light ever…..This may be the greatest thing I have ever seen built by any person EVER:twothumbs:twothumbs!
> I’m sorry to ask a question you might have already answered, but It getting difficult to remember all the different stats for each bulb. How many Lumens is this one:thinking:?
> 
> And if it’s 4 times more intense compared to the Maxablaster “VS. the original concept that was a mere 15% higher in average luminance……..would that not make this light potentially throw 2 miles farther then my original “_over estimated_” distance of 12 miles…So you might hit stuff at 14 miles away.…….Or more……


 


Maxablaster's Osram HBO 103 W/2 Lamp
2,550 Lumen
270-300 cd
150,000-170,000 cd/cm^2

Osram XBO 500 W/RC OFR
13,000 Lumen
1800 cd
260,000 cd/cm2


Herein lies the problem. The math makes sense, but the results do not. There must be some sort of incorrect value for the lamps given by Osram. I'm not really sure. In any event, it is definitely safe to expect at least double the candlepower of the Maxablaster. The relative candle power is comprised of a few factors... 1. Luminous intensity, 2. Collimation, 3. Light Gathering, and 4. Reflectance

1. Comparing the luminous intensities is pretty straight forward. The Maxablaster's Osram HBO 103 W/2 is 300 cd and the Osram XBO 500 W/RC OFR is 1800 cd. That's 6x the intensity!

2. Since the collimation ability is the inverse relation of reflector focal length to the size of the light, it is also the direct relation of reflector focal length to average luminance in cd/cm^2. The XBO 500 w/RC producing 260,000 cd/cm^2 with a 12" reflector having a 2" focal length would have a relative collimation factor of 520000. The HBO 103 w/2 producing 170,000 cd/cm^2 with a 9.5" reflector having a 1.3" focal length would have a relative collimation factor of 221000. That's a net differential collimation factor of 2.35x, which means that we are also collimating that extra intensity by 2.35 times as much as the Maxablaster.

3. In order to gain that longer 2" focal length for collimation, we have given up 15% of the light gathering, even while going with a larger reflector. So the light gathering factor puts us at a slight disadvantage of .85x *(EDIT: This is underestimated. The larger reflector will actually have 2.7% more light gathering. See post #116 below)*

4. Reflectance is dependent upon the reflector coating used. For protection against the HBO 103 W/2 lamp's UV radiation, the Maxablaster requires a Rhodium reflector with a 76% reflectance. The XBO 500 W/RC OFR produces less UV and may be able to use an aluminum/quartz coated reflector with a reflectance of 90%. That's a differential factor of 1.184x. *BUT* I am not including this factor because I'm not sure if I would go with the aluminum/quartz coated reflector because although the XBO 500 W/RC OFR produces less UV, it still produces some, and the aluminum/quartz coated reflector will still eventually wear out and it costs more than the Rhodium as well. For this reason I am not including this factor.

So let's total it up:

Luminous Intensity Factor x Collimation Factor x Light Gathering Factor
6 x 2.35 x 1.027 = 14.4807 *(Revised)*

So as you can see, this is completely impossible. This can not possibly produce 14.5 times the candlepower of the Maxablaster. There must be an error in one of the lamp's specs, or the how they were measured. If we consider the difference in collimation ability and light gathering alone without considering the 6 times the intensity we are putting into it, we are still at a safe minimum of nearly 2.5 times the candlepower, and that is enough for me to justify this as a worthwhile project. In the end, the only thing that matters is the actual performance, and that, I can't wait for. *(Revised)*


----------



## get-lit (Sep 28, 2009)

And on that note, I can not wait for $50K to come along to cover the tooling costs for this. As much as a full-fledged injection mold process would be awesome, I just don't have that kind of money. This is a highly specialized item and only a handful of rich people or people willing to become poor will be willing to fork over the money for these to recoup the tooling costs. So unless some military contract or investor comes along, I'm gonna have to go the route of metal fabrication. That's okay though, I guarantee it will still be worth it. It will just look more like a crude light canon.


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 28, 2009)

get-lit said:


> And on that note, I can not wait for $50K to come along to cover the tooling costs for this. As much as a full-fledged injection mold process would be awesome, I just don't have that kind of money. This is a highly specialized item and only a handful of rich people or people willing to become poor will be willing to fork over the money for these to recoup the tooling costs. So unless some military contract or investor comes along, I'm gonna have to go the route of metal fabrication. That's okay though, I guarantee it will still be worth it. It will just look more like a crude light canon.


 
Yes, I to agree it would simply be inconceivable that this thing could put out 12 times the intensity of the Maxablaster. However even with _“only”_ twice it’s intensity I believe it should be worth it:thumbsup:.


----------



## Chrontius (Sep 28, 2009)




----------



## get-lit (Sep 28, 2009)

Chrontius said:


>


 
Hmm, that looks like the tri-lamped VIP 120 that I once pondered.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 28, 2009)

Ok, more good news. I underestimated the light gathering ability compared to the Maxablaster. This plan actually has *more* light gathering ability with the added collimation. This is a very accurate calculation based upon the actual calculated area of the luminance pattern utilized by the reflectors...






So the comparisons posted earlier are even more underestimated, by another 18%. The difference is in how much I originally underestimated how much more light the P51-2 gathers on the back end compared to the others. I corrected the earlier post to reflect this.

I had to make more accurate comparisons because I wanted to see what the trade-off is for going with a bit smaller reflector like the 10.5" shown here. As you can see, the trade-off is not worth it, and the gains with the 12" are definitely worth the added bulk. So I will be sticking with the 12" for sure.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 28, 2009)

Hmm, so it appears that there are many more coatings available that aren't advertised. Take a look at the graph for "Metal Reflectance Performance" at:
http://www.optiforms.com/reflectgraphs.php

Hopefully one of them is as durable as Rhodium but with much better performance. If it can last as long as Rhoduim while being as reflective as Quartz-Protected Aluminum, then cost really isn't much of a factor. Have to make another phone call.

By the way we are only concerned with the *visible range* of *400 to 700 nanometers*. Good Lord, what is that *ALHR HotRod*??? That stuff would give another 25% boost! I want it.


----------



## get-lit (Sep 29, 2009)

I'm posting so fast, I hope everyone that's interested has time to review everything. In any event, I have completed the preliminary plan for an easily machined unit. I really do like the injection molded plan but like I said, I don't have that kind of money for the tooling required to complete that project. Below you will see how the two plans compare. First the injection molded plan, and then the more affordable machined plan...

*INJECTION MOLDED:*







*MACHINED (BARE METAL):*







*MACHINED (REAR VIEW):*





*MACHINED (PAINTED BLACK):*







I gotta say, I really like the machined version. Sure looks mean! Please let me know what you think...


----------



## get-lit (Sep 29, 2009)




----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 29, 2009)

Well the plastic injection molded version was like “oh wow, that’s cool looking” while the black machined version with the florescent exhaust is like “Holy Crap, What the F#$% is that?! The Death Ray Annihilator 9,000!” Yah I want that one soooooooo baaaad:twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs!!! 







get-lit said:


>


----------



## get-lit (Sep 30, 2009)

That's interesting that you like the fabricated version better than the injection molded version. When I realized I couldn't afford to make the injection molded version, I didn't think I could out-do the design when coming up with a plan for a fabricated version, but I did my best.

In order to keep material cost down, I have to choose just one color for the front exhaust.

*I really want a phosphorescent material! I wonder how bright that sucker glow after turning the light off!!!*

This is apparantly the brightest stuff you can get, like ten times brighter than normal and lasts for 24 hours...


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 30, 2009)

get-lit said:


> That's interesting that you like the fabricated version better than the injection molded version. When I realized I couldn't afford to make the injection molded version, I didn't think I could out-do the design when coming up with a plan for a fabricated version, but I did my best.
> 
> In order to keep material cost down, I have to choose just one color for the front exhaust.
> 
> ...


 
Oww, I really like that. It reminds me of cartony radioactive stuff:laughing:. I would go for that:thumbsup:. You know you’re a Geniuses right:bow:? If you don’t mind me asking, what do you do for a living?


----------



## get-lit (Sep 30, 2009)

LOL! Thanks! But it's not genius, it's just an interest. I don't think a genius would drink as much I do, heck look at my avatar. I read a lot for a long time - trying to find answers to questions that the industry didn't want to share. The interest started from the very moment a police helicopter lit me up with an SX-16 over 15 years ago. I wanted that. And I wanted to be able to carry it easily. And now I want for everyone else to have the same ability without having to go through the hoops I've gone through over the years. As far as work, I'm a web developer/programmer, but I wish I were a presidential adviser to President McCain instead.


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 30, 2009)

get-lit said:


> The interest started from the very moment a police helicopter lit me up with an SX-16 over 15 years ago. I wanted that. And I wanted to be able to carry it easily. And now I want for everyone else to have the same ability without having to go through the hoops I've gone through over the years.


 
To bad you won’t quite meet your goal….The NightSword will make a helicopter searchlight look like a candle:twothumbs!


----------



## get-lit (Sep 30, 2009)

Juggernaut said:


> To bad you won’t quite meet your goal….The NightSword will make a helicopter searchlight look like a candle:twothumbs!


 
Let's see.. the SX-16 searchlight has a 1.0x3.2mm luminous area within a 9.5" reflector. The Nightsword will place a 3.7 times more intense and smaller 0.7x0.8mm luminous area in a 12" reflector! When you compare the collimation in relation to the SX-16 with a 4-degree divergence and the smaller SX-5 with a 2-degree divergence, the Nightsword should have a 0.4-degree divergence, which is 7 mrad. Considering that a laser is 1.5 mrad, that's about 5 times the divergence of a laser, but at more than roughly 6,000 collimated lumen after losses, that's the output of 5,000 5mW white lasers which would take a total of 10,000 watts to drive.


----------



## Juggernaut (Oct 1, 2009)

get-lit said:


> Let's see.. the SX-16 searchlight has a 1.0x3.2mm luminous area within a 9.5" reflector. The Nightsword will place a 3.7 times more intense and smaller 0.7x.08mm luminous area in a 12" reflector! When you compare the collimation in relation to the SX-16 with a 4-degree divergence and the smaller SX-5 with a 2-degree divergence, the Nightsword should have a 0.4-degree divergence, which is 7 mrad. Considering that a laser is 1.5 mrad, that's about 5 times the divergence of a laser, but at more than roughly 6,000 collimated lumen after losses, that's the output of 5,000 5mW white lasers which would take a total of 10,000 watts to drive.


 
! Like I said: MOST EPIC LIGHT EVER!
:twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Oct 1, 2009)

I'd probably be drooling if I knew what you were talking about 

Still, watching this thread like a hawk. A hungry one...who eats lights...:thumbsup:


----------



## get-lit (Oct 1, 2009)

I appreciate the feedback. Please keep in mind that I am doing everything I can to try to keep cost down, but without sacrificing performance. Still, the lamp alone retails for $1500, but fortunately can be found for $700 if you look hard enough. The reflector is in the $450 to $700 range depending on the coating, and ballasts for these lamps typically run a few grand and weigh too much to be easily portable. BUT - I am working with a manufacturer to develop a custom ballast that uses pure DC input to eliminate a lot of the components that add bulk, weight, and cost. I haven't yet discussed cost with the manufacturer because I already know that it's going to be more affordable than a standard AC input ballast and I don't want to disrupt their ambition for developing it for us. They want to go with 24v DC input but I'm going to push for 12v so that a Li-Ion battery doesn't necessarily have to be required. It's just that it is more difficult to develop a ballast for the lamp from 12v input than it is from 24v input, and that translates to a bit more cost. I will have to weigh that versus the added benefit of 12v versatility as well as not having to buy a battery to get started. Then of course there is the housing, which I'm working to make as cost effective to build as possible. I'm finding that many of the internal components add up. Quality components are required in order to maintain such tight alignment; things like a custom machined telescoping piston and sleeve for the focus, the gear motor, the lead screw, and it's anti-backlash nut assembly. This is all needed in order to maintain micrometer adjustments. We also need a suitable collet for mounting the lamp, which will likely also have to be custom machined to lock into the focus zoom piston. For quality components, they aren't cheap, and as much as I'm driven to keep cost down, I'm not going to sacrifice performance, durability, and usability. It's still a long road ahead, but we're getting there one day at a time.


----------



## BVH (Oct 1, 2009)

In just very rough figures, do you think the light will cost around $3,000 to $4,000 to build?


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 1, 2009)

This project mostly has me speechless in awe. I wonder how often Ra is checking on your progress! lovecpf


----------



## Patriot (Oct 1, 2009)

I almost PM'd Ra to let him know about the NightSword project but I noticed that he's signed in regularly. I would guess he's been around the HID forums and reading this thread. I hope he comments sometime about it. 

:wave: Ra


----------



## get-lit (Oct 1, 2009)

Yes, I had PM'd him to see if he's still active here and I had asked him if he was aware of any new lamps since our old discussion. He said he's been very busy lately, but he did tell me that the original Osram version "should" still be available. But after finding the Ushio version with 4 times the lamp life, I'm not sure I want the Osram now. Anyway, I'm not big on the thought of this as a Maxablaster killer. *The Maxablaster will always be the original.*

I would really like to keep cost down lower, at least for a while for the people following this. I'm keeping the construction as simple as possible so I could offer it in a kit form for those handy with a Mig welder. Mig welders are only a couple hundred bucks and this would be a very easy project to learn how to use one. The design will already be way overly strong for rigidiy for alignment, and so JB Weld would work just fine because it's just as rigid.

Here's a ballpark high and low that I would like to stay under...

High...
Lamp $700
Reflector $700
Ballast $900
Housing Kit $600
Total: $2900

Low...
Lamp $700
Reflector $550
Ballast $500
Housing Kit $500
Total: $2250

That's without a battery. That way everyone can choose how many packs they wish to get for themselves, or none at all if I can make it in 12v.

You like?


----------



## BVH (Oct 1, 2009)

Yes Sir! Me Likey


----------



## karlthev (Oct 1, 2009)

Hmmmm....++++++++:thumbsup:



Karl


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 2, 2009)

Now we need to get one of us to take it to the moon and signal back. It looks like a good project so far.

You may want to see how many could come up with the scratch to get one if you are thinking economy of scale in multiple units.

I call "Dibbs" on a reservation!


----------



## BVH (Oct 2, 2009)

Me too!


----------



## get-lit (Oct 2, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> You may want to see how many could come up with the scratch to get one if you are thinking economy of scale in multiple units.


 
I wanted to do a group buy on the components as well, but I'm very weary because of the cost of these components. If half of the committed people poop out, that would make for a huge issue for any deals we can strike up. I'm not in a financial position to buy any of these components in quantity, so something would have to be worked out that involves a lot of trust, or a PayPal pool or something.

The lamps would probably be the most straight forward. I would call Osram and Ushio and they would give me OEM pricing, but at a minimum quantity of one case, which I don't know how many that is yet. I know that the distributors who sell around $700 are already skimming, so we may only save a hundred or so for the lamps.

The reflectors may have the most leeway, but first I need to contact them again and determine the most suitable coating. I want something that has the most reflectance that is still durable and can withstand a fair amount of UV light without corrosion and degrading. After that call, I will post here again to try and get an idea for quantity. Then I will call them back to see what "they can do".

I'm weary of toying with the price on the ballasts just yet, because to have them custom made for this application is a huge accomplishment, and in all actuality, this is the single component required that is currently unavailable anywhere and we absolutely need it to make this happen. It's going to take the company a few months to develop the ballast and I will get into talking price once they've already gotten their feet dug into the project and I have an idea of demand for them. Right now I'm more concerned with getting it in 12v input than with price.


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Oct 2, 2009)

'm intrigued by this project and finally after watching it for some time have something to say.

Honestly I think that a 24V DC input is quite reasonable. LiFePO4 or IMR cells are plentiful enough that I think, considering the ambition of the rest of the project, we who would actually consider something like this can handle using them. 
To get 12V you need 10 NiMh, whereas you only need 8 LiFePO4s (or 6/7 IMRs) to get ~24v. And imho, in general, the less cells in the pack, the easier it is to build, balance, charge and manage. So in the end especially if it ends up being less expensive to go for a 24V input I'd go for that one. ymmv.


----------



## get-lit (Oct 2, 2009)

Thanks. For 12v, ZIPPY Flightmax 5000mAh 3S1P 30C...

http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=8587


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Oct 2, 2009)

Well then if your heart is set on Lipo...

Although the energy density is lower I find that I like LiFePO4 packs. When dealing with that much power and I'm holding it in my hand/ backpack/ etc I'd rather err on the side of caution. :shrug:


----------



## BVH (Oct 2, 2009)

I've seen a few group buys go awry over my 5 years here but overall, I don't that is a lot. I would not be adverse to the pre-pay process. Probably should not be talking about "sales/group buys" in this thread. I don't think we're supposed to do that. Maybe DM will advise?

Lux might not be happy about this but.....Oh well, I'll do it anyway......Who better to have in this process that the finest battery pack maker? If 24 Volt input makes it easier/cheaper, I have no issues with it.


----------



## get-lit (Oct 2, 2009)

PhantomPhoton said:


> Well then if your heart is set on Lipo...
> 
> Although the energy density is lower I find that I like LiFePO4 packs. When dealing with that much power and I'm holding it in my hand/ backpack/ etc I'd rather err on the side of caution. :shrug:


 
Thanks, I never even heard of LiFePO4 packs. Am I doing something wrong or do they actually have almost a third higher energy density as well as being safer and a longer cycle life?

http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=6563
18650 LiFePo4 Cell
3.2V x 1100mAh / 39g = *90 mWH/g*

http://www.enerland.com/product/product_list_f.asp?cat=NaP26&scate=13.2V
Nanophosphate 26650
13.2V x 2300mAh / 330g = *92 mWH/g*

http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=6353
Li-Poly
11.1V x 5000mAh / 796g = *70 mWH/g*

I also really like how they are much more configurable dimension wise.


----------



## get-lit (Oct 2, 2009)

BVH said:


> Who better to have in this process that the finest battery pack maker? If 24 Volt input makes it easier/cheaper, I have no issues with it.


 
I'm confused, what is the finest maker you suggest?

I see that 12v vs 24v is not much of a big deal here. That's surprising. I do a lot of boating on open water and I really like the idea of unlimited run time when needed.


----------



## BVH (Oct 2, 2009)

Not what, but who. If you end up using cylindrical cells, Lux Luthor used to fabricate battery packs for many CPF'rs. He has a professional CD tab welder.


----------



## Patriot (Oct 2, 2009)

With size and weight being an issue I can't imagine anything besides li-lo being practical. As for the possible dangers, they do exist but that's usually the result of abuse. Like many things, they require some specific care.


----------



## get-lit (Oct 2, 2009)

Patriot said:


> With size and weight being an issue I can't imagine anything besides li-lo being practical. As for the possible dangers, they do exist but that's usually the result of abuse. Like many things, they require some specific care.


 
I'm confused though. The LiFePo4 Cells are *90 mWH/g* and the Li-Pos are *70 mWH/g*. That means the LiFePo4 cells actually store more energy.


----------



## Parabolic (Oct 2, 2009)

Very interesting thread! Having been involved in reflector manufacturing for the last 30+ years, I can relate some info that may or may not be relevant at this point.
The butterfly shaped tank reflector was nicknamed the 2.2, based on the lamp power of 2.2KW. It had a focal length of 6.9". The smaller tank light, nicknamed 1KW for it's 1000 watt lamp, was 14" in diameter with a focal length of 2.35".


----------



## DM51 (Oct 2, 2009)

Parabolic said:


> Having been involved in reflector manufacturing for the last 30+ years...


Welcome to CPF, Parabolic.

I'm sure your specialist knowledge will be of great value here  

You might like to take a look at these 2 threads when you have some time...
Homemade 24" scratch built & designed reflector 
50 inch Reflector "Monster Light"


----------



## Patriot (Oct 2, 2009)

get-lit said:


> Thanks, I never even heard of LiFePO4 packs. Am I doing something wrong or do they actually have almost a third higher energy density as well as being safer and a longer cycle life?
> 
> http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=6563
> 18650 LiFePo4 Cell
> ...







No sir, you're looking at a 6S 22.2V pack.



3S 11.1V X 5000mAH / *358g

*


To build a 12.8V 4400mah pack, you'll need 16 cells, which weighs 624 grams without wiring. A 5500mah pack will take 20 cells and weighs 780 grams without wiring.


----------



## BVH (Oct 2, 2009)

LiPo should be the highest power per gram, correct? LifePo will certainly have more charge cycles per life of the battery though.


----------



## get-lit (Oct 2, 2009)

Parabolic said:


> Very interesting thread! Having been involved in reflector manufacturing for the last 30+ years, I can relate some info that may or may not be relevant at this point.
> The butterfly shaped tank reflector was nicknamed the 2.2, based on the lamp power of 2.2KW. It had a focal length of 6.9". The smaller tank light, nicknamed 1KW for it's 1000 watt lamp, was 14" in diameter with a focal length of 2.35".


 
Thanks Parabolic. That large tank light then had 3.45 times the focal length with 0.31 times the average luminance, gathered at probably under 40%. My guess is that tank light would then have half the candlepower, but of course with a TON more light within it's range. Hmm, since it's rated 100 million CP in the far field :thinking:. I'm done comparing. This must be built.


----------



## get-lit (Oct 2, 2009)

Patriot said:


> No sir, you're looking at a 6S 22.2V pack.
> 
> 3S 11.1V X 5000mAH / *358g*
> 
> To build a 12.8V 4400mah pack, you'll need 16 cells, which weighs 624 grams without wiring.


 
Ahh! I knew something was awry. So the Li-Pos have 72% more density. I've read up on the Li-Pos and I'm not too worried. It's really a matter of using them properly, as in not using them up faster than their rated discharge rate and not over charging them, and of course not puting nails through them.

If we end up going 12v, I would just have a power jack and let everyone use whatever power source they choose.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 2, 2009)

BVH said:


> LiPo should be the highest power per gram, correct? LifePo will certainly have more charge cycles per life of the battery though.



What is the current required? I know when I built my custom pack for MaxaBeam, I used the A123 cells (BTW, their IPO stock price is holding up so far) because of the spec requirements listed from Bob Kleinhans:

> *...ballast will need as much as 15 amps @ 12 volts for 5-10 milliseconds. After warm up the ballast will draw a maximum of 10 amps on high. The "normal" setting power draw is more like 4.5amps @ 12 volts*


----------



## Patriot (Oct 2, 2009)

get-lit said:


> Ahh! I knew something was awry. So the Li-Pos have 72% more density. I've read up on the Li-Pos and I'm not too worried. It's really a matter of using them properly, as in not using them up faster than their rated discharge rate and not over charging them, and of course not puting nails through them.





yeah exactly, and even the discharge rate isn't a critical concern, it typically just means less power for the RC hobbyist. For this application it's not even a concern. Lower rated 15-20C packs will be fine. Over charging and nails are very bad though....lol.


----------



## get-lit (Oct 3, 2009)

The lamp itself is 30A @ 14V. Figure a total operating power of 504 watts or less after factoring in ballast efficiency. When 11.1v Li-Pos are near the end of the charge, they have 10v, so they need to supply over 50A. But there is another boosted voltage phase to the lamp during startup in addition to a 50,000v spark, so there is tremendous current drain on the battery during ignition. For 11.1v Li-Pos, three 30C packs in parallel may be required so that their rated discharge is not exceeded for safe operation. Of course if we go with 24v input, then you would need two 22.2v 30C Li-Pos, maybe just one if they can handle more than 30C for a short time during ignition.


----------



## larryk (Oct 3, 2009)

Great work so far on this incredible light. 
The plastic injection molded version looks very nice but a little generic for a build like this. The metal version looks awesome. It has that custom built look that says it's ready to kick some butt before it's even turned on.
I think your last worry is what batteries you want to power it with. I'm sure Lux could build a great battery pack for it.
This is a truly amazing undertaking.


----------



## Patriot (Oct 3, 2009)

get-lit said:


> The lamp itself is 30A @ 14V. Figure a total operating power of 504 watts or less after factoring in ballast efficiency. When 11.1v Li-Pos are near the end of the charge, they have 10v, so they need to supply over 50A. But there is another boosted voltage phase to the lamp during startup in addition to a 50,000v spark, so there is tremendous current drain on the battery during ignition. For 11.1v Li-Pos, three 30C packs in parallel may be required so that their rated discharge is not exceeded for safe operation. Of course if we go with 24v input, then you would need two 22.2v 30C Li-Pos, maybe just one if they can handle more than 30C for a short time during ignition.




What ever the li-po's rated discharge they can handle double that in bursts 10 seconds. So a 25C rated li-po has burst discharge rate of 50C. Compared to the continuous off and on throttle modulation of RC flying, li-pos won't even flinch in this application.


----------



## get-lit (Oct 3, 2009)

larryk said:


> Great work so far on this incredible light...
> ...I think your last worry is what batteries you want to power it with.


 
Thanks larryk. I'm mainly focused on the materials and components for the housing. Right now I'm working on the motor speed, lead screw specs, and the gear ratio to obtain a desried zoom speed. The zoom travels 1" (25mm) and has to be stopped under a 0.1mm tolerance. If we can make 1/10th of a second stops by tapping the zoom button, then we need a zoom speed of under 1 mm/second. But that would take 25 seconds to travel, and I would like the zoom to take under 5 seconds, so I'm working on a physical pre-adjustable zoom stop which would allow us to use a faster zoom speed without having to manually stop the zoom within 0.1 mm each time.


----------



## get-lit (Oct 5, 2009)

We're going with Rhodium for the reflector. I had a discussion with Optimforms and Rhodium is the only coating they recommend for this application. They said that although it only has a 76% reflectance, the actual reflectance would be much greater than that because the reflector we are going with is average depth and the angles of incidence will not be very extreme for the reflectance specification to make a huge difference. At least we know the reflector will cost $550 at most now instead of over the $700 mark. By the way, I noticed their gallery shows they are the maker of the NightSun SX-16 reflector. That's kind of interesting.

I'm waiting to reach the Ushio product manager to discuss their lamp vs. Osram's. The Osram is rated at 400 hours in vertical position and 200 hours in horizontal. The Ushio is rated 1200 hours in vertical only. I'd like to know if we could get 600 in horizontal, or if it's even usable at all in horizontal. In the meantime I'm still working on the lamp base and alignment assembly.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 5, 2009)

get-lit said:


> We're going with Rhodium for the reflector. I had a discussion with Optimforms and Rhodium is the only coating they recommend for this application. They said that although it only has a 76% reflectance, the actual reflectance would be much greater than that because the reflector we are going with is average depth and the angles of incidence will not be very extreme for the reflectance specification to make a huge difference. At least we know the reflector will cost $550 at most now instead of over the $700 mark. By the way, I noticed their gallery shows they are the maker of the NightSun SX-16 reflector. That's kind of interesting.
> 
> I'm waiting to reach the Ushio product manager to discuss their lamp vs. Osram's. The Osram is rated at 400 hours in vertical position and 200 hours in horizontal. The Ushio is rated 1200 hours in vertical only. I'd like to know if we could get 600 in horizontal, or if it's even usable at all in horizontal. In the meantime I'm still working on the lamp base and alignment assembly.



Really great how much you are checking out all those little details! :thumbsup:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 8, 2009)

Also when you get really bored, I posted some questions and request for further elucidation in that other thread. :bow:


----------



## BVH (Oct 19, 2009)

Missing updates to your work get-lit.


----------



## Juggernaut (Oct 23, 2009)

BVH said:


> Missing updates to your work get-lit.


 
+42!


----------



## Patriot (Oct 23, 2009)

He has probably been hard at work.


----------



## Juggernaut (Oct 23, 2009)

Patriot said:


> He has probably been hard at work.


 
I would think so, I can’t think of anything that would be easy to make for this light.


----------



## get-lit (Oct 26, 2009)

I have some additional unexpected family expenses, so now I have to wait for a tax return to cover the big ticket items for this project. Needless to say, I will be filing very early this year. Last night I did come up with a good method to adjust the end stop for the powered zoom. The end-stop adjustment screw will also double as the lamp assembly release for easier lamp changes. It was one of the last concerns in the initial design that I hadn't quite figure out before.


----------



## Patriot (Oct 26, 2009)

He's back!

Say, I've been meaning to ask you....with all of your ingenious problem solving designs, where did you acquire your skill? Are you a schooled engineer or just a gifted enthusiast?


----------



## get-lit (Oct 27, 2009)

Patriot said:


> He's back!
> 
> Say, I've been meaning to ask you....with all of your ingenious problem solving designs, where did you acquire your skill? Are you a schooled engineer or just a gifted enthusiast?


 
I guess I just look at something and see the way it "should" have been done to begin with, from my point of view of course. As a programmer, I love functional problem solving, and doing functional problem solving with something physical like this project is even more rewarding. Never went to school for engineering. When there is something I don't understand, I read up, mostly online, about every known aspect about it. When there are things that have no answers, I really have fun because then it becomes truly creative. To me, realizing something even as simple as a new way to do something is about as rewarding as discovering new land. The quest can be as fun as the end result. It's not genious, it's just plain fun.


----------



## Ra (Oct 30, 2009)

I cannot beleve I missed this... Beleve me, this is the first time I see this..

Very interesting stuff ! I didn't have the time yet to read it all, but I read the most important aspects of this (theoretical) monster.
I've been quite busy at work lately, and my free time mostly goes to another project:
The creation of 2 new telescopes.. (I already build 12 of them in the past)

This means that right now, I don't have much time to put in another supertorch project..

But the very nice and promising things get-lit posted in this thread shure makes me follow this closely, and perhaps brings me to another superlight-project sooner than expected..
But building high performance telescopes also takes time..

Well done get-lit !! Keep up the good work !


All the best,

Ra.


----------



## BVH (Oct 30, 2009)

Hi Ra, haven't seen you around for ages it seem like!


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 30, 2009)

get-lit said:


> I guess I just look at something and see the way it "should" have been done to begin with, from my point of view of course. As a programmer, I love functional problem solving, and doing functional problem solving with something physical like this project is even more rewarding. Never went to school for engineering. When there is something I don't understand, I read up, mostly online, about every known aspect about it. When there are things that have no answers, I really have fun because then it becomes truly creative. To me, realizing something even as simple as a new way to do something is about as rewarding as discovering new land. The quest can be as fun as the end result. It's not genious, it's just plain fun.



Beautifully said!


----------



## Ra (Oct 31, 2009)

Thanks for the warm welcome BVH...


Ok.. I've read most of this now.. And I have a few remarks:

First I must say that I very much like the CAD-drawings in this thread, they make the dreams come to life. Beautifull design too, this NightSword monster.

Ok, a few things I feel the need to react on:

1: When you start to make theoretical calulations on a project, you are limited to what manufacturers tell you about their lamp-specs. Although the difference between brands in that aspect will not be as big as the difference we see in CP-output claims (torches) of different manufacturers, there still will be a difference with a real-life situation.

Example: I have both a Fatboy 50 watt setup and the 100W mercury Maxablaster setup.
The theoretics: Fatboy delivers aprox 5300 (bulb) lumens, the HBO 103w/2 more like 3000 (bulb) lumens.

Switching to real life: In a livingroom-lightbox-setup, the HID-Thor Fatboy setup gives me only about 10% more lumens than Maxablaster ! So, eighter the Fatboy doen't live up to it specs, or the 103w/2 doesn't.. (or both..)
However, some of this difference is explainable: I run the 103w/2 at close to 110watt to bulb, giving more lumens and luminance. But some of that immidiately dissapears with the fact that my Fatboy Thor has a neat aluminum reflector with close to 90% reflection, and the MB has the 76% reflection Rhodium type reflector...

Don't get me wrong here, I absolutely don't want to say: "You can discuss all you want theoretically, the real-life situation will be different!" And lets face it: In the above, MB performes even better than the theoretics based on manufacturers specs (on lumens). So it can go eighter way..

2: The luminance of the arc... Some of that is said before: Different lamptypes mean different arc-geometry. Some have two hotspots, some have just one, and a more evenly luminance over the entire arc is also possible. Manufacturer claims are mostly based on average luminance, so how high the actual usable luminance will be in real life mostly depends on the geometry of the arc. Few manufacturers provide specsheeds with luminance-distribution graphs.. (very usefull)

Fact: Better bulbs are designed as we speak, no doubt that the possibillities will come (or already are here) to make a much more powerfull, and most important (IMO) portable, supertorch.

One of my beamshots, posted in this thread, clearly shows a blue beam towards the cloud, with a more greenish spot on the cloud itself. The Mercury short-arc has a nasty peek in the green part of the visible spectrum, and particles in the sky scatter more blue (shorter wavelengts) So MaxaBlaster is not the ideal torch on colorrendering.
Maxablaster is a throw-monster, nothing else. Many still think that 4 miles is the limit for MaxaBlaster, but that is based on the fact that, mostly, I could not find any clear targets further away (and take pictures at the same time) In a perfect atmosphere, the throw of MaxaBlaster is aprox 8-9 miles (on light-gray to white objects) The further the throw of a light, obviouly, the more the atmosphere will try to ruin things for you!

A word on bulblife: The 300hr bulblife of the 103w/2 seems not much, but MaxaBlaster is not the torch to grab when you go to your wineceller for a nice bottle, or go for a walk in the park. MB is a toy to impress family, friends, colleagues and yourself. I constructed MB in 2006, now it has 15hrs on the bulb! So in my case, even with less than 200hrs bulblife (110watts), the 103w/2 will last a mere 30 years or so.

As an optical engineer, I also have the skills (and equipment) to successfully free UHP-bulbs from their reflectors (projector-bulbs), but it still is a hard job to do..(not without riscs)

Indeed, the best discussion you can have is the one about batteries: With a more efficient battery-setup, more room is left for the electronics, the battery-specs are getting better and better every day.
Making a supertorch is not so hard these days, making a (reasonably..) portable supertorch still is! I found the best solution with a Monacor inverter, by far the most compact design I could find. The 150watt version fits nicely under the belly of the Thor-Platinum. I fortunately ordered the 220watt version (which is only aprox 1.5inch longer) together with the 150watt back in 2006, now they are very hard (read nearly impossible) to find.. So I still have the possibillity to start a 200watt portable superlight project..


Best regards,

Ra.


----------



## BVH (Oct 31, 2009)

Ra said:


> As an optical engineer, I also have the skills (and equipment) to successfully free UHP-bulbs from their reflectors (projector-bulbs), but it still is a hard job to do..(not without riscs)
> 
> 
> Ra.



Ra, I'd kill for 300 Hr bulb life for my Locator lights. Please read this thread and see if you have any suggestions for me.

http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=3123483#post3123483

The glass structure of the Marc 300 and Marc 350 are virtually the same as the glass body of my original bulb but I have no way of re-basing them. And they are the color temp I crave. Is it possible, for a fee, to remove the glass bodys from the 300 and/or 350 and the body of my original bulb from its bases and re-use the 300 and 350 in the original bases? I am almost desperate to obtain at least a few bulbs. At 25 hours life to 75% brightness, I really need some.


----------



## Ra (Oct 31, 2009)

PM sent...


----------



## Patriot (Oct 31, 2009)

Hello Ra,

Very nice to to read your posts again and I'm glad that you'll be following this thread. If anyone can appreciate all the work in *get-lit's *project I know you can. 

Hope you're doing well,


Paul


----------



## get-lit (Nov 6, 2009)

Good to see you back like old times again Ra. I have some serious unexpected things going on that's going to take up most of my time for quite a while, so I might just post all of the entire design diagrams here so that possibly this project can take on a life of its own without it having it wait on me to be able to free up my time for it. Please let me know if anyone thinks that by posting the entire design if you feel it will keep this project alive even if I can't be on top of the project.


----------



## BVH (Nov 6, 2009)

I'd prefer to see the project go forward with you at the helm on your time schedule, no matter what it is. If it's a month, 6 months, a year.


----------



## get-lit (Nov 7, 2009)

Thanks for the input. I will keep this as a priority. Just a warning though that with everything on my plate, it's more like a year.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 6, 2010)

Tax returns are around the corner. I also have a friend whom says can handle the machining. This project is progressing slowly but surely.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 6, 2010)

I have a question I would like to again propose regarding the design goal. There is a trade-off in the design that I would like to review and discuss. Although short arc Xenon lamps produce the highest light intensity for throw, they are not very efficient at producing raw output in lumens. The design as it currently stands is all about maximizing candlepower or throw, using the highest intensity lamp available, the XBO 500 W/RC OFR, at 260,000 cd/cm^2 and a large top grade reflector. The system Etendue, as the reflector size to luminance area ratio, to produce throw is beyond anything else ever devised for portable use. The design is optimized for throwing the light from a 13,000 lumen source tens of miles, way beyond what you could ever see.

Here's my question... Alternatively, the Osram SharXS HTI 700W could be used as a design goal for much more practical everyday use. It would produce 4.5 times the amount of light at 59,000 lumen within the range you can see, but it could not compete with the XBO 500 W/RC OFR beyond the range which you can see. Using the Osram SharXS HTI 700W in this design would still perform on par with the 1600 watt SX16 Night Sun helicopter searchlight, in both throw and total light output. The Osram SharXS HTI 700W lamp is also only $150 versus around $700-$1400 for the XBO 500 W/RC OFR lamp.

*So which is it? A design which would be more powerful for lighting up something you could never see at tens of miles away from the light, or a design which would be 4.5 times more powerful for lighting up something within the range which the person actually holding the light can see?*

:thinking:


----------



## BVH (Jan 6, 2010)

No question in my mind - I'd like to see the Osram SharXS HTI 700W used. Throw beyond normal, unaided visual range, while fun, would not be as fun as having a night sun-like light in my hands, so to speak.


----------



## Patriot (Jan 6, 2010)

BVH said:


> No question in my mind - I'd like to see the Osram SharXS HTI 700W used. Throw beyond normal, unaided visual range, while fun, would not be as fun as having a night sun-like light in my hands, so to speak.




+1

I also agree. If it helps to keeps the price manageable at the same time it's a win / win in my book.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 7, 2010)

That's was I have been leaning toward, a practical hand-held Night Sun rather than a much lower output, albeit Guinness thrower light. The SharXS lamp will require a much different ballast, so that will take some more work to address.

Here's how I figure this will perform nearly the same as the Night Sun. Both have relatively the same luminous intensity and total lumen output, but the SharXS is hindered in that it is an AC lamp, because there are two luminance peaks. Being AC is useful though, because it extends lamp life, efficacy, and orientation. With the double luminance intensity peaks, I'd dock the overall collimation ability of this lamp by 25%, but the larger reflector will increase collimation by at least 25%, so all in all it should be equivelent to a hand-held Night Sun.

I'm also revising the housing design because there was an issue I had become unwilling to settle with. With the forced-air exhaust exiting the front, there's a high potential for cooling problems when using the light against high wind, such as on a moving boat. When used against even mildly high wind, pressure will build up upon the front of the light and interfere with the forward exhaust. Changing the design's air flow direction will not work, because if the air intake is on the front, nothing can be done to stop rain from entering. I have some good ideas I'm working on to resolve these issues.


----------



## OpticsGOD (Jan 7, 2010)

Doing a comparison with Maxabeam and Polarian and I have found that I need to collimate the beam down to where the maxabeam is. I was going to use a lensing solution with an optic on the front. Is this a good solution or for IR illumination would it be more preferred to use a illuminator such as the Nightsword. Help folks.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 7, 2010)

With the added power requirement, the battery will have to be carried as a separate pack which could be strapped over the shoulder. The battery pack will contain 5x ZIPPY Flightmax 5800mAh 6S1P 30C packs in series for 111VDC @ 5.8A, and a total of 643.8 watt hours. The 700W lamp and electronic power supply will require a combined 819 watts, so the battery will last for 47 minutes. The pack dimensions will still be fairly small at 2.25" x 10" x 6" and will weigh only 10 lbs. The overall size and weight of the light itself is reduced a fair amount.

Keeping the price down on the electronic power supply is becoming a real chore. Standard retail is a few grand and they are *very large* and *very heavy*, so I'm working hard to get the size and weight way down, as well as get the best deal without making any compromises. I'm also trying to have the electronic power supply built to accept both the 111v DC battery pack as well as 110v AC line voltage. The light can then be powered from the battery pack as well as a standard wall outlet, or even from a decent DC/AC inverter for powering by car or boat.

Lots of money will be saved however on the lamps. The previous plan averaged $2.33/hour, whereas we're now at $0.20/hour with 4.5 times the usable light; guilt-free light that is.

One more thing, the SharXS HTI lamps do require a warm up period that will have to be put up with, but the efficacy gained is well worth it at 84 lumens/watt!

It's coming along!


----------



## tab665 (Jan 8, 2010)

ive been following this thread allthough i havent made any posts in it. its good to see your back at it get-lit. seems like you really got the ball rolling now.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 9, 2010)

Thanks tab665.

Ok folks, I came across another lamp that I had previously overlooked; the Ushio Emarc SMH-600. It has an efficacy of 73 lumen/watt. These are DC lamps, so they still have a single luminance peak rather than two peaks for AC lamps, so they should match the performance of pure Xenon lamps in throw but with half the power requirement. They have 1000 hour lamp life, hot re-ignition, and cold start-up time is under a minute to full output, so they seem to be all around great. They also have a safe pressure when cool, so they aren't dangerous to handle.

Another plus is that they are high-voltage/low-amperage lamps as opposed to pure Xenon, so the control gear will be much less costly and bulky. They are also DC as opposed to SharkXS AC lamps, so the ballasts will again cost less.

They also require much less ignition voltage, so they are safer to operate in a portable light, and the clearance around the lamp connections can be reduced.

They are also very small, and they have the best mounting design I've seen for portable applications. One end is threaded and the other end simply has a lead. With the thread, I don't have to use a collet or clamping method to keep the lamp securely mounted for active portable use. It will be much easier to service the lamp. Since it can be unscrewed, the lamp mount doesn't have to be removed from the housing to dismount the lamp.

There is also the SMH-850. Specs can't be found online so I will call on it next. It should have an efficacy of around 80 lumen/watt with about the same average luminance, peak luminance, and total lumen output as the XBO 1600. So in the Nightsword, the SMH-850 should easily outperform the SX-16 Night Sun, and while using half the power.

This doesn't slow things down at all, in fact it makes things much easier all around. Most of my clearance issues for ignition arcing are resolved, as well a simplified mounting method. Being a much smaller lamp, the housing can be made smaller without having the lamp extend beyond the aperture lens. I about scrapped the SharXS many times just because of how difficult it would be to mount it.

I'm pretty excited to soon get documentation for the SMH-850 to say the least. There's also the SMH-1300. Hmm :thinking: The 800 is about the limit for versatility, especially when you don't want to drain your car or boat batteries.


----------



## BVH (Jan 9, 2010)

This sounds great! This is a fun thread to keep an eye on!


----------



## get-lit (Jan 9, 2010)

Thanks BVH. I always liked your avatar. Not only is the light in it awesome, but it's like a subliminal Star Trek logo or something, like it's the future of light straight from captain BVH.


----------



## Bimmerboy (Jan 9, 2010)

BVH said:


> This is a fun thread to keep an eye on!


It really is! Been following this almost from the beginning, but since activity has recently kicked back up, I find myself even more intrigued than earlier on. The NightSword promises to be one of, if not THE most impressive builds ever shown here.

Speaking of avatars, Get-Lit, yours is hands down (or shall I say bottoms up ?), my favorite on CPF. I just love the double-entendre both verbally, and visually. It's no secret I'm quite fond of beer, and obviously flashlights as well. You've managed the ultimate expression in combining the love of alcohol, and photons into one super cool avatar!

:bow: Now, if there were only a smiley that tries to bow, but keels over head first into the pavement...

BTW, I had been quite conflicted over the question you posed a few days ago, but have come to a _somewhat_ peaceful resolution. The problem to me initially was whether I should suggest to you that since this would be a light like no other, it should maximize, and capitalize on it's uniqueness, and go for the furthest throw possible. Hence, the use of the XBO 500 W/RC OFR. To have a light so incredibly collimated that needs a telescope to see it's reach... well, you'd have the only one I know about, portable or not! That's some serious bragging rights, and you'd be in a class completely without peer.

But, then there's the "capitalizing" part. The bulb is very expensive, and would anyone want to carry a telescope just to get the full effect of what the thing is capable of? Probably not. Even I, who saw a certain clarity of purpose in using the XBO over the SharXS, had a tough time denying the eyeball searing gratification, and much higher overall usability of a hand held Night Sun. LOL... usability... like we're talking about Mag mods.

So, if you're talking about offering kits, or at least plans for people to build their own, I *grudgingly* have to agree; Go for the Night Sun type of output.

But if it's only for yourself, then my resolution is not quite as peaceful. I say go for something no one else is doing. Anyone can build the new brightest, most visually impressive light. For me, your initial idea of ultimate throw was the most intellectually, _and_ emotionally satisfying.

I can't help but also wonder if there could be any military interest given some scenario where ultimate collimation, and not lumens would suit a particular task, but that's a side issue.

BTW, I should point out that either way I won't be able to afford this thing... lol. So, take my words with a grain of salt. But, I hope that doesn't detract too much from my point. Nonetheless, I'm sure I'll be cheering the final outcome no matter what!

I like big bulbs and I cannot lie. You flashaholics can't deny.

When a bulb plugs in with a itty bitty waist, and a small arc in your face you go BLIND!


----------



## BVH (Jan 9, 2010)

Thanks to JetSkiMark who took my Avatar pic at a SoCal get-together in 2008.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 9, 2010)

Bimmerboy, everything you've said exactly describes my feelings about the direction of the project. It's quite a conflict really, but as you've summed it, since I want to make this something for as many people as possible, usability and price are factors, as well as what's the most "realistic" use it will get.

As is stands, I seriously can not grasp how insane something more powerful than a hand-held Night Sun would be. It been my goal for 18 years running.



Bimmerboy said:


> I can't help but also wonder if there could be any military interest given some scenario where ultimate collimation, and not lumens would suit a particular task, but that's a side issue.


 
Regarding the XBO 500 W/RC OFR in this application, there is no doubt about some things one could speculate due to the nature of the highly collimated and intense output, but I don't mention them because that kind of talk is the food for legislation to get something like that outlawed. Remember, a simple 5mw laser is the most we're "trusted" to have. This would be like 5,000 of them, although a bit less collimated, but 5,000 near lasers in your hand is not something that would be allowed for long.



Bimmerboy said:


> BTW, I should point out that either way I won't be able to afford this thing...


 
The final component costs should come down, especially now since the electronic control gear can cost much less than the Xenon type. My goal is to keep this under $2000 + optional batteries, at least for every one that's been involved in the discussion so far. That's *10%* the cost of the Night Sun.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 10, 2010)

Bummer, there are **NO** 850+ watt power supplies for DC HID lamps. Hundreds for 1000W+ AC HID lamps, but none for high power DC. There's a few for ~300W DC HID lamps and one for 500W, but no 850+. 

That means this going to have to be a custom build power supply, which again means it will cost quite a bit more. But at least with a custom build there are more options, like simple 24v DC input without a transformer and without large filtering capacitors which should keep the power supply at 2 lbs or less. Voltage and current regulation can be fully optimized for the lamp. Plus the boost phase can be custom tailored for the lamp for quick smooth startups. For auto and boat use, a 12v -> 24v DC/DC converter can be used for around $300 instead of a power inverter. Also, with 24v DC input rather than 110v DC input, I don't have to worry about how I'm going to get that much voltage in series safely with Li-Po batteries, and of course 24v is all around safer than 110v for a battery pack. More money for the power supply, yes, but it's the only option left, and at least it will be an ideal setup.


----------



## Ra (Jan 10, 2010)

I've kept my eyes on Emarc for more than a year now..

They indeed have some big advantages.. I myself still am thinking of replacing the 103w/2 bulb of Maxablaster with the 200w Emarc version... Yep, its 'only' 10,000 bulblumens, but I want to keep things (very) portable, and I already have a 220watt Monacor inverter (with the best power/weight ratio among inverters)
That inverter works with the ELDC 2.31 supply to operate the 200watt bulb.
With the newest technology on batteries, it should be able to squeeze all that into the thor host, with the inverter under it's belly (the same as Maxablaster).

Maxablaster has about 9 miles of throw, but because of the quite low lumens output (aprox 3500) it only produces a very narrow, laserlike beam. Not very practical.
But then again, I think a lightmonster like this will never be practical. You dont grab this to walk your dog. I sure wouldn't (but thats only because I don't have a dog..)

I would be more satified, even when throw came down a bit, to have more usable sidespill, and therefore much more lumens are needed!
On the other hand: More sidespill also prevents you to look further away, to see the objects that, far, far away, are illuminated by the high-power center of the beam.

That problem cannot quite be solved by a lamp-focus system: With the small arcsize and the perfect parabolic mirror, you always will see the characteristical donut-shaped beam when moving the bulb to flood position.. Of cource, when you accept this donut, things are much easier.

The 600watt Emarc solution is tempting, but then you indeed propably end up with a backpack or belt full of (dangerous..?) batteries.

Also be ware of the fact that you cannot opt for a battery-pack that has a runtime of under 30minutes: With Maxablaster, I have a pack that is capable of runtimes around 70 minutes, and when that one is half empty, it has barely power left to restart the bulb..(because high-amps are needed for that)
You need to have much overpower (very low internal resistance) to be able to start the bulb when not completely charged.

Ofcource, I can be wrong but my guess is that with the 600watt Emarc, you need a minimum of 50 Ah to overcome these powerproblems..
This depends on the starting characteristics of the ballast.


Tell me what you think about this..

Regards,

Ra


----------



## get-lit (Jan 10, 2010)

Well, the plan for the 200w sounds much easier to pull off because there are power supply solutions at hand, but with the 600w you will probably have to go with a custom build power supply because the highest wattage supply I've seen is 500w, and even that one you'd have to buy in large quantity. Also with the 200w you may not need forced air cooling which makes things so much easier. The lamps are all very small, so size is not an issue when determining which power to go with. In general I feel that if you're going to go through the effort for the 600w, you may as well use the 850w because it's the same amount of extra work and nearly the same cost.

All in all, from everything I've read these past few days about the Emarc, it seems to be the most logical choice for a portable mega light in any wattage you choose. It closely matches the performance of Quartz Xenon short arc lamps, but with double the efficacy which allows us to double the amount of light we can "carry" around, in addition to being easier to cool. As summed up everywhere I've read, they combine the advantages of a xenon, a mercury, and a halide lamp, into a single source.

Here's why I was happy to get away from the SharXS lamps:







You can see that with the same average luminance in the luminance areas, the DC lamps designed to condense luminance upon a singe point have a much better peak luminance point for most effective collimation. We've covered this several times, but this illustration is helpful. Now with some AC short arc sources like the VIP 120, this does not apply so much because the arc is so small that the two points have merged into one anyway.

I've come across many follow spots and search lights that have moved to the Emarc for its benefits over Quartz Xenon lamps, Strong is one brand in particular that's done so at least with one line. I've considered so many different lamp technologies that I'm sure it can become tiring to read about, but the Emarc is probably it for me.


----------



## SemiMan (Jan 10, 2010)

get-lit, what sort of "production" volume are you hoping for with this light?

You have talked several times about a custom power supply. Odds are anything custom, unless they plan to sell on the general market, is going to cost 10's of thousands of dollars in custom engineering time. If they plan to make it a general market product, there is UL\VDE\CE\FCC, etc. I would caution against relying on a custom supply unless you have a strong commitment at an arrived at cost/volume.

In terms of batteries, there are several avenues you may wish to explore:

- Off the shelf LiFePO4 battery packs http://www.pingbattery.com/servlet/the-48V-LiFePO4-Battery-Packs/Categories
- LiFePO4 Electric bicycle battery packs (24/36/48 volt) in what appears to be standard packages
- LiFePO4 Car Starter batteries..... unfortunately 12V, but designed to put out hundreds of amps.

I am trying to find the data I had on a company from about a year back. I was looking to import for something I was working on. Look up e-bikes, etc. and you will find a ton of stuff. These are very popular now as they take a ton of abuse coupled with the flat discharge. To RA's point, you need to be concerned with pack resistance when the battery is getting dead. These should be great for that.

Semiman


----------



## get-lit (Jan 10, 2010)

SemiMan said:


> get-lit, what sort of "production" volume are you hoping for with this light?
> 
> You have talked several times about a custom power supply. Odds are anything custom, unless they plan to sell on the general market, is going to cost 10's of thousands of dollars in custom engineering time. If they plan to make it a general market product, there is UL\VDE\CE\FCC, etc. I would caution against relying on a custom supply unless you have a strong commitment at an arrived at cost/volume.


 
I would probably have to do like others do here and just do batches of like ten at a time. I'd previously made arrangements to work with a very talented power supply builder. As an individual, he would likely be willing to work with me on quantities as long as I can guarantee that I continue to get them from him if he developes them. That was the direction our discussions had gone before. He's kind of had me on a little waiting period here to make sure that I stay committed before he spends any time developing it, which is a good thing because now I'm looking at a different lamp.

It won't be a general market product, it will be a specialized kit form for people to build for themselves so that it can be as affordable as possible. If I have to, the power supplies will be sold separately as an OEM product as to not be a complete product with the kit. The lamps can also be purchased separately from the kit.

Regarding the ability for batteries to re-start the light, as batteries discharge, it's their voltage that drops which adversely affects their ability to deliver power quickly. The voltage drop for Li-Pos is fairly flat, typically only around 15% until near the end.

The ZIPPY Flightmax 5800mAh 6S1P 30C are capable of discharging at 30x their amperage with a burst rate of 60x. They are 22.2v so 4 of them wired parallel should power the light for at least 25 minutes, and should retain the capability of providing 1392 burst amps @ 19v near the end of discharge. That's 26448 burst watts minimal, and 13224W sustained minimal.

On the other hand, Li-Pos are sensitive to temperature. For instance at 0 Celsius they have reduced capacity and faster declining voltage curve. So under freezing conditions you could expect voltage to drop 25%. If we figure conservatively at 30% voltage drop at near end of discharge under freezing conditions, that's 1392 burst amps at 15.54v, or still 21631 burst watts. Still no problems there.

To be honest, I'm more excited about the possibility of powering the light by car or boat because that's where it will get the most use by me anyhow. With a lamp that doesn't cost a fortune to use, I would like to use the light as much as possible. I don't wan't to be too concerned with charging batteries and anticipating how much time I have left when I'm using the light. So for me, battery use would be much more an occasion than the norm.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 10, 2010)

Oh ya, regarding the final cost of the power supply, I'm really not too concerned even if it is really up there. The reason is because I've exhausted so much effort into the issue over all these years to actually have a portable high-powered short-arc lamp power supply, that if I can get what I need in the optimal manner, I will pay it. All my efforts have really shown me that the cost of the power supply is well worth it. I know that doesn't speak for everyone else, and for them all I can say is that they'd be getting something that isn't available anywhere, and this is as good as it gets. So it's really up to the power supply builder to determine how many he wants to sell based upon what he is going to charge, and I will make that choice very clear to him when we discuss the bones.

Remember that a high-powered power supply for short arc Xenon lamps typically weigh around 40 lbs or more, and cost thousands of dollars. By going with pure DC input, this builder is able to make a small light-weight power supply with greatly reduced component cost which he was going pass the savings on. You can't be too concerned about the price of getting the final component that makes a portable high-powered search light such as this even possible for the first time ever.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 10, 2010)

Some great discoveries with bulbs you are looking at now and power supplies. I know there are a number of us that would love to have the portability rather than be tethered to a car/boat. Mainly, great news on being able to narrow it down to DC.

Very exciting project, even if it takes longer than a year.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 12, 2010)

Today we're one step closer on both the lamp and power supply fronts.

As far as the housing design, having been unable to peek inside the Nightsun, I've always wondered what kind of awesome tricks they had tucked inside. I found the patent on it's focusing system, and the internal diagram seems to be of a fairly crude design, so I guess I haven't been missing out on anything big and great there after all.

Nightsun Patent PDF: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6191547.pdf

One thing I don't understand is how they mount the lens. It's nice and flush against the front of the housing, I like it:











Link to huge image:
http://www.craigc.net/gallery/main.php/d/168-1/NightSun.jpg

Link to another huge image:
http://www.meekeraviation.com/images/products/eurocopter/ramp-shot-as-350-nightsun-mount_W.jpg

Link to another huge image (*Great Pic!*):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3247/2880366029_6936433811_o.jpg


----------



## get-lit (Jan 15, 2010)

Ok, the specs for the SMH-850 are pretty impressive. When comparing the SMH-850 to the best XBO 1600.

_EDIT: I just realized something in my arc gap comparisons beweeen the XBO 1600 and the Ushio SMH-850. Osram does not list arc gap sizes, but luminance sizes. The actual arc gap sizes are larger. If the two lamps are to be compared, then we have to consider that the smallest gapped XBO 1600 is actually 3.8mm. That then mean that the SMH-850 at 3.5mm has an arc gap advantage, not a disadvantage as I had previously thought. Therefore the following is revised:_

SMH-850:
Lumen output: 70,000
Arc Gap: 3.5 mm

XBO 1600:
Lumen output: 70,000
_Arc Gap: 3.8 mm_

_EDIT: Therefore, the SMH-850 has an 8.5% collimation advantage over the XBO 1600. Since the Nightword reflector will have around 26.3% collimation advantage over the NightSun reflector, the total collimation benefit is about 37.14%._

Also, an electronic power supply for this lamp is coming along! Things are really shoring up.


----------



## Juggernaut (Jan 17, 2010)

I know this is not my light, nor have I contributed to it’s constructions both financially and technically, but I have to say it’s a shame you rerouted from the most aw inspiring thrower of all time to a super high power spot light. Of course it will still be impressive. It’s just that it loses that all important aspect of sci-fi capabilities. Has anyone ever produced a 70,000 lumen portable spotlight? No, but has anyone ever seen what the output / beam of one would look like? Yes. No one has ever packed this much power into such a small size, but on a world wide scale it’s output will be nothing special. For $2,000 I could strap 70X 600 watt Par64 bulbs to a piece of plywood and see what 1,050,000 Lumens plus 70x 650,000 Candle Power would look like. Would it be portable, practical, efficient, or usable? No, but it would probably destroy a NightSun in output and throw. However I could strap *1,000* of these bulbs together and *never* achieve what a 240,000 Average Luminance bulb in a precision reflector could do, nor has any man living today or ever in the past been allowed the privilege of such a sight. 20+ miles of throw would be incomprehensible. Of course this is realizing that this light will still throw many miles, it’s just that I would always feel it could be more, that I could have made it something more unique. I just recently finished a hotwired regulated incandescent spotlight which may just be the longest throwing incandescent light on earth, it’s 5,000 Lumens of blistering white light can reach out and touch something as far off as 1,500 yards, not much farther then my 1,000 watt GE light. Why on earth would I want a light to throw only a few hounded yards farther then my 27,000+ Lumen aircraft landing light? Well just because! I find the 5,000 lumen thrower 100x more amazing then all 27,000 lumens coming out of the GE light even if it’s beam is much more practical. Why?, because it’s unique. There is 3 other people in this world that have 1,000 watt GE light, but only I have created such a long thrower as my other light. In the end it really comes down to your decision, on how you want to build this light, and you may not agree with any of my reasoning, but I just wanted to write this just incase you were still on the fence, a lot of my friends always ask if their has been any updates on the legendary space penetrating thrower: “The NightSword”, but if you decide not to go for your original design that’s fine it’s all up to you.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 18, 2010)

I revised the NightSun vs Nightsword comparisons posted earlier because the Osram lists the XBO 1600 luminance area rather than arc size, so to make the comparison more accurate, I had to find the arc size of the XBO 1600 and revise.

Thanks Juggernaut. For what it's worth, the NightSun, with 70,000 lumen, can illuminate 1 lux at 7200 meters. Therefore the Nightsword with the same lumen output and with a 37.14% collimation advantage should illuminate 1 lux at 9874 meters, which is still 6.1 miles. Of cours this is all over simplified. Throw is actually an inverse square relation, but I'm also basing the collimation advantage on simple reflector diameter rather than aperture area or the focal length/light gathering relation. I'm not about to delve into the full formula for etendue so that I can arrive at a definitive comparison, it's the arc size to reflector size concept that's important. In the end, the NightSun has a 4-degree divergence, and the Nighsword should have a 3-degree divergence with the same 70,000 lumen.

In any case, a light of this kind has never been done in any kind of portable light before. To enable something like this to be at all practical is a huge feat. As I intend to make this for everyone, the matter of practicality becomes an issue, and having 5.3 times the light output that can still throw 6 miles is much more practical and impressive for the person behind the light, than compared to 1/5 the light that can throw beyond the distance the person behind the light could ever see. What I have planned is something that can light the #[email protected]% out of anything you can see.

Here's the deal. Over 90% of the work is in creating a ventilated, weather-resistant, portable housing that can host these kinds of powers safely and reliably. Once that has been accomplished, it would take relatively much less effort to create additional replaceable collet mounts for different lamps and to change the ballast. So, once a housing like this has been completed, lamp selection is no longer a mutually-exclusive process. It would then become an issue of obtaining a portable ballast for the other lamp, and the creation of a portable ballast for the other lamp will always still be an option even though we're working on a portable ballast for the SMH-850 at the moment.

The housing is coming along. The design is about finished. I'm thrilled with it way beyond anything I've posted so far, and you will see what I mean. I can't wait to reveal it. It's a long slow process to plan for cost-effective suppliers and fabricators for so many specialized components. The ballast as currently planned will have both DC and AC input from 90v to 240v, so a portable battery pack would have to be at least 90 volts.

By the way, the ballast under way will likely provide for *dimming* and *strobe* modes. Strobe mode should be very interesting!


----------



## get-lit (Jan 18, 2010)

Juggernaut, there is also a discrepancy that's been making me weary of the huge average luminance advantage the XBO 500 W/RC OFR has over the XBO 1600 W/HS OFR.

Please consider the following:

XBO 500 W/RC OFR
Reported Average Luminance: 260,000
Luminous Area: 0.7x0.8mm = 0.56 mm2
Lumen output within that area: 13,000
Actual Calculated Lumen/Luminous Area: 23214

XBO 1600 W/HS OFR
Reported Average Luminance: 70,000
Luminous Area: 1.0x3.2 = 3.2 mm2
Lumen output within that area: 70,000
Actual Calculated Lumen/Luminous Area: 21875

As you can see, there is really hardly any difference at all in the calculated intensities. The XBO 500 W/RC OFR and the XBO 1600 W/HS OFR both equate to squeeze about the same amount of light per unit area. The XBO 1600 W/HS OFR just has 5.3 times the amount of light squeezed into 5.7 times the area. I don't know how they arrived at such a high reported average luminance for the XBO 500 W/RC OFR; it's such a simple calculation that doesn't add up. I think the XBO 1600 W/HS OFR easily has the edge, and the SMH-850 even more so.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 18, 2010)

*Comparing Light Performance:*

Here's some useful relations that allow us to accurately compare expected light performance:

Relative Divergence is Focal Length per Luminance Area:

_Relative Divergence = Luminance Area/Focal Length_

Relative Luminous Intensity is an inverse square relation to Divergence times Lumen Output:

_Relative Luminous Intensity = Lumen x Percent Light Gather x 1/(Divergence)^2_

Substituting for Divergence:

_Relative Luminous Intensity = Lumen x Percent Light Gather x 1/(Luminance Area/Focal Length)^2_

Since reflector diameter is essentially the capacity for Light Gather and Focal Length, for reflectors with the same ratios of Light Gather to Focal Length (ideally optimized), we can simplify to:

_Relative Luminous Intensity = Lumen x 1/(Luminance Area/Reflector Diameter)^2_

Luminous Intensity is an inverse square relation to Throw Distance:

_Luminous Intensity = 1/(Relative Throw Distance)^2_
_Relative Throw Distance = sqrt(Luminous Intensity)_



Because the luminance area for the SMH-850 is unkown, arc gaps will be used to compare instead.

*NightSun*
Lamp: XBO 1600 W/HS OFR
Lumen output: 70,000
Arc Gap: 3.8mm
Reflector Diameter: 9.5"
Known Divergence: 4 degrees
Known Throw: 1 lux at 7200 meters

*Nightsword*
Lamp: SMH-850
Lumen output: 70,000
Arc Gap: 3.5mm
Reflector Diameter: 12"
Relative Divergence: _4 / ( (12/9.5) x (3.8/3.5) ) = 1.371428571428571_ = 2.92 degrees
Relative Luminous Intensity:_ (70,000 x 1/(4^2))/(70,000 x 1/(2.92^2))_ = 1.88
Relative Throw: 1.88 lux at 7200 meters = 1 lux at 9874 meters

So, when going from 4-degree divergence to 2.92-degree divergence of the same amount of light, we get 88% more luminous intensity, and 37% more throw.




Also notice that as there happens to be two countering inverse square relations, luminous intensity to divergence and luminous intensity to throw, luminous intensity can be eliminated from the comparison, and a simple relation can be deduced:

*Relative Throw Distance = sqrt(Lumen) x Relative Beam Divergence*

And Substituting for Beam Divergence:

*Relative Throw Distance = sqrt(Lumen) x sqrt(Percent Light Gather) x Focal Length / Luminance Area*

Substituting Reflector Diameter for Percent Light Gather and Focal Length:

*Relative Throw Distance = sqrt(Lumen) x Reflector Diameter / Luminance Area*

The above makes comparing performances very simple to understand what an optical combination is going to gain you. For instance *halving the luminance area* will provide for *double the throw*, as well would *doubling the reflector diameter*, given that both reflectors have the same Percent Light Gather to Focal Length ratios. i.e. if you double the focal length while using the same reflector profile with the same light gather, the reflector diameter is doubled, as well as throw. Also note that in obtaining the optimal ratio of focal length to light gather for a given reflector diameter, light gather has a direct relation to luminous intensity and a square root relation to throw, while focal length has a squared relation to luminous intensity and a direct relation to throw. Therefore for a given reflector diameter, obtaining the maximal focal length is paramount to throw, at least until the point of diminishing returns in the loss of light gather is reached.

NightSun Relative Throw Distance = 70,000 * 9.5 / 3.8 = 175000
Nighsword Relative Throw Distance = 70,000 * 12 / 3.5 = 240000
Nighsword to NightSun Throw Distance Ratio = 240000/175000 = 1.3714

So if the NightSun throws to 7200 meters, the NightSword should throw to 9874 meters, or 6.1 miles.


----------



## BVH (Jan 18, 2010)

Way beyond the technical knowledge of light I have but I follow the theory and practical of what you're saying. This is really getting exciting! What an amazing hand-held light source this will be!


----------



## get-lit (Jan 18, 2010)

Thanks BVH!

I'd like to fully evaluate the average luminance discrepancy between the XBO 500 W/RC OFR and other lamps. Before, I had mistakenly used Lumen per Luminous Area to compare, but the comparison should be Candela per Surface Area, which does give the XBO 500 W/RC OFR a good advantage, but not as much as expected when reading the spec sheet.

With a DC short arc lamp, the Luminous Intensity is emitted from the surface area of an elongated elliptical sphere, and likely around 25% of that area is not utilized due to the electrodes.

*XBO 1600 W/HS OFR*
Luminous Intensity: 5500 cd
Luminous Area: 1mm x 3.2mm = .1cm x .32cm
Elliptical Sphere Surface Area = 4*3.14*0.05*0.16 = 0.10048 cm^2
75% Emitting Surface Area: 0.07536 cm^2
Average Luminance = 72,983 cd/cm^2 (Right on target)

*XBO 500 W/RC OFR*
Luminous Intensity: 1800 cd
Luminous Area: .7mm x .8mm = .07cm x .08cm
Elliptical Sphere Surface Area: 4*3.14*0.035*0.04 = 0.017584 cm^2
75% Emitting Surface Area: 0.013185 cm^2
Average Luminance: 136,518 cd/cm^2 (About half of the reported spec)

Average Luminance Difference: 87%

So how does that translate to throw? Well Lux is the inverse square relation of candela to distance:
Lux = cd/m^2

And Average Luminance is the inverse square relation of candela to distance:
Average Luminance = cd/cm^2

They are both on the order of an inverse square relation with distance, therefore, they are both on the order of a direct relation to each other; *Average Luminance is a direct relation to throw*, and the XBO 500 W/RC OFR with 87% more average luminance will throw 87% further when using the same reflector, and likely around 80% further than the SMH-850. So with the Nightsword, here's our realistic options:

*SMH-850*
Lumen Output: 70,000
Divergence: 2.92 Degrees
Throw Distance: 1 Lux @ 6.1 Miles

*XBO 500 W/RC OFR*
Lumen Output: 13,000
Divergence: 0.51 Degrees
Throw Distance: 1 Lux @ 11 Miles

If the XBO W/RC OFR did in fact have an average luminance of 260,000 cd/cm^2, the Nightsword with that lamp would easily through over 20 miles.

So again for the Nightsword, the lamp choices amount to 538% the light output versus 80% more throw.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 18, 2010)

How lamp manufacturers arrive at their average luminance values doesn't seem to add up for the more specialized lamps. I wonder how they determine their average luminance. The calculated average luminance of the XBO 500 W/RC OFR is about exactly the same as the HBO 103W/2 used in the MaxaBlaster. They are less than 1% difference in average luminance. The new ultra luminance XSTAGE 2000 W lamp by Osram is within 3%, and the higher power XSTAGE lamps are considerably less. With the same reflectors, these will all throw to the same distance, but the higher output lamps will create a wider beam to place more light over a larger area at that same distance.

_CORRECTION: The calculated average luminance of the HBO 103W/2 used in the maxablaster actually far exceeds any of the other lamps I've compared, *34% more* than the XBO 500 W/RC OFR and the XSTAGE 2000 W. There MUST be something else going on that determines how much of the arc surface area is included in the average luminance figures!_


----------



## Juggernaut (Jan 18, 2010)

Just finished reading your newest, data after replying to your PM, no doubt the SMH-850 will be utterly impressive, while the false claims around the XBO 500 W/RC OFR’s average luminance doesn’t make it quite as impressive as it once was. I could defiantly see the advantage the SMH-850 has now:thumbsup:. Though I still giggle at the thought of a .54 degree beam throwing 11 miles. I’ve seen a 2.98 degree beam before it’s extremely intense “a lot less floody then I thought. .54 on the other hand is simply incomprehensible:duh2:, I’ve got a light I built with a .98 degree beam and it throws 650 yards with only 55 lumens! I can’t imagine what 13,000 lumens would look like!
 
But anyways now that you have this extremely accurate measuring system “better then anything I could ever come up with!“, anyway you could figure out the characteristics of a VIP 120 beam? I know the lamp was eventually scraped from the design faze “what was it? Availability / molded reflector or something:shrug:” but I though it had some crazy average luminance:devil:. I know your not going to build it, but if I ever have enough time and money I still wanted to try that with a 14 inch reflector as I stated long ago. You don’t have to do the math “I’m no good”, but if you want to just humor me, I bet I would get a good laugh:thumbsup:.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 19, 2010)

Well, it's easy to calculate. If we were to TRUST the manufacturers's provided average luminance specs to all be on a level playing field, the Osram P-VIP 100-120/1.0 P22h DLP Lamp with 200,000 cd/cm^2 average luminance would throw 33% farther than the Maxablaster with the same reflect as the Maxablaster:

200,000/150,000 = 1.3333333

The Maxablaster uses a 33mm focal length, 9.5" diameter reflector. If you were to go with a 14" reflector with the same light gathering to focal length ratio as the Maxablaster, you would gain another 47%:

14/9.5 = 1.473684210526316

Now the Osram P-VIP 100-120/1.0 P22h lamp is an AC lamp, which means it has two peak luminance points, so it would have to be docked at least 25%:

0.75

So multiply all your factors and you got:

1.3333333 * 1.473684210526316 * 0.75 = 1.473684173684211

47% more throw than the Maxablaster. But with all of the discrepancies I've seen with reported average luminance figures, this is definitely not something you can bank on. Also, notice that because the VIP 120 had to be docked 25% due to having two luminance peak regions, it comes out as exactly the same as the MaxaBlaster's HBO 103 lamp, with the only real difference being your larger planned reflector size of 14". Of course the VIP 120 will put out more light however, just not more throw distance.

Until there is a way to know you can trust the manufacturer's reported average luminance values, or if the values can be measured somehow, there is really no way to base a real comparison other than to try it. 

Needless to say, I'm a bit discouraged about creating a throw king because of all this, which is just another reason why I'm very happy to instead make a NightSun killer.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 19, 2010)

Uh Oh!

http://www.policeaviationnews.com/Acrobat/PANewsJune2005.pdf

At this year’s Airborne Law Enforcement Association (ALEA) Expo, Universal Searchlights of Omaha, Nebraska is debuting two alternatives to the Spectrolab searchlight. The HeliLight 1™ and HeliLight 2™ are small helicopter searchlights offering *2 – 3 times the light output of the Spectrolab SX-16 Nightsun®* allowing helicopters to fly higher, safer and quieter.

HeliLights™ feature commercial lamps, patent pending power supply options, no life limited parts, high speed motors with patent pending slewing, standard mounting, all functions patent pending dual control, FLIR slaving, variable focus, 2 year warranty – all at a price lower than the Nightsun®. Coming soon is the HeliLight 3™, a Spectrolab SX-5 Starburst® replacement. HeliLights use SLASS - the industry standard for slaving a helicopter searchlight to a FLIR. There are over 300 systems in operation and demand still running strong. SLASS is available for FLIR Systems Mark 2, FSI U6000, FSI U7000 and 7500, FSI U8000 and 8500, FLIR Systems Star Safire, FSI Ultra Media, Wescam 12, Wescam 16, Wescam MX-15, Taman POP 200 and Aerial Films Gyrocam. You can find a PDF brochure on-line on the Universal Searchlights website.

http://www.universalsearchlights.com/helilight.html

*HeliLight 1 ®* - 1450 watt xenon / 1600 watt xenon / 2000 watt xenon, 50/60/80 million candle power

*HeliLight 2 ®* - 1800 watt HMI, _*100 million candle power*_ - Coming Soon!


Also now available is the new Trakkabeam A800 Searchlight:
http://www.trakkacorp.com/tc/searchlight_products.htm#view


----------



## Juggernaut (Jan 19, 2010)

get-lit said:


> Uh Oh!
> 
> http://www.policeaviationnews.com/Acrobat/PANewsJune2005.pdf
> 
> At this year’s Airborne Law Enforcement Association (ALEA) Expo, Universal Searchlights of Omaha, Nebraska is debuting two alternatives to the Spectrolab searchlight. The HeliLight 1™ and HeliLight 2™ are small helicopter searchlights offering *2 – 3 times the light output of the Spectrolab SX-16 Nightsun®* allowing helicopters to fly higher, safer and quieter.


 
Oh NO! Competition! We can’t have any of that. 
 
Thanks for doing out that math for me:thumbsup:.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 19, 2010)

Ok, so the Trakkabeam A800 with 21 Lux @ 1km can't touch the Nightword, but those Helilights do look a bit scary. Too bad they took down their PDF specs to really know anything more.

As far as the HeliLight 2, the best HMI type lamp I can find is the Osram HTI 1800 W/SE XS:
HTI 1800 W/SE XS
160,000 Lumen
38,000 cd/cm^2
Arc Gap: 7mm

It's an AC lamp, so it has the disadvantage of two luminance peak regions. The lamp more than doubles the light output of the Nightsword, but at the expense of only about 40% of the throw distance, and more than twice the power consumption of the SMH-850. 160,000 Lumen is a lot of light, but I don't have a clue how they could claim 100 million candlepower with that low of an average luminance, in an AC lamp as well, unless they are measuring close to the aperture and collecting a lot of less coherent light that don't reach far anyhow.

The biggest HeliLight 1 is a 2000 watt Xenon, and unfortunately it appears as though they are not using the new XSTAGE 2000 W lamp because the rest of the options appear to be the standard Xenon short arc lamp wattages. Even the best standard 2000 watt Xenon only offers 14% more throw and light output than the best 1600, and still not enough to throw past the Nightsword with the SMH-850. So unless there is some new lamp tech that I'm not aware of, I don't see any big gains with these new lights over the Nightsword as currently planned.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 19, 2010)

Juggernaut said:


> Thanks for doing out that math for me:thumbsup:.


 
I just realized, most 14" reflectors are of very long focal lengths like around 3", and at that point if you are not careful, you could be loosing a bit too much light gathering for the focal length gains to not be worth the while. Depending on the lamp's angular luminance distribution profile, you may not be any better off than with a 12" reflector with a 2" focal length.

Remember that when you are comparing reflectors to be sure to use the following formula:

Relative Throw = sqrt(Gather) x Focal Length

So for with a 12" reflector with 2" focal length and 85% Light Gather with a particular lamp:
Relative Throw = sqrt(0.85) x 2 = 1.843908891458577

Now compare to a 14" reflector with 3" focal length 45% Light Gather:
Relative Throw = sqrt(0.45) x 3 = 2.012461179749811

So the 14" reflector would gain you 2/1.84, or 8.7% throw, but at a loss of 47% of the light. Plus the reflector is 2" bigger in diameter. Not really worth it for this example lamp. That's why it's really important to know what's going on with the focal-length to light-gather relation for a particular lamp when comparing reflectors. And that's why I spent so much time calculating angular light output totals from the angular luminance distribution profile for Xenon short arc lamps.

Another note however; deeper reflectors that gather more light also have greater angles of incidence than shallower, longer focal length reflectors. The greater angles of incidence are less efficient at reflectance, and greater angles of incidence have more errant divergence than a perfect 180-degree reflection. So deep reflectors can loose their merit to some degree as well.

*EDIT: If you were to go with a 14" reflector, I believe one with a standard 2.35" focal length would be optimal. With 3", you're giving up way too much light gather. A 14" reflector with a 2.35" focal length would give you about 14% more throw with nearly the same light gather than a 12" reflector with a 2" focal length. A 14" reflector with 2.35" focal length would be a very nice reflector indeed.*

I ended up choosing a 12" reflector with 2" focal length for the this project because I felt that for roughly 14% less throw than a 14", the 12" is quite a bit more portable.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 24, 2010)

By the way, I've notived a new advertiser here that is offering what seem to be very nice reflectors, and they have a great selection of the larger reflectors, some over 20" I believe!

I wish there were an advertiser index here so I could find it again. Maybe some day I would make something with a mega reflector and one of those new XSTAGE 7000 W lamps! Although not protable, it would be the most intense beam of light ever. I would still prefer a portable light in the end though.


----------



## DM51 (Jan 24, 2010)

get-lit said:


> By the way, I've notived a new advertiser here that is offering what seem to be very nice reflectors... I wish there were an advertiser index here so I could find it again.


I think this may be the one you mean: Anyone tried Phoenix reflectors?


----------



## Juggernaut (Jan 24, 2010)

get-lit said:


> By the way, I've notived a new advertiser here that is offering what seem to be very nice reflectors, and they have a great selection of the larger reflectors, some over 20" I believe!
> 
> I wish there were an advertiser index here so I could find it again. Maybe some day I would make something with a mega reflector and one of those new XSTAGE 7000 W lamps! Although not protable, it would be the most intense beam of light ever. I would still prefer a portable light in the end though.


 
Don’t say stuff like that:devil:, you get all the gears rolling in my head! I may not be able to do all that surface brightness / average luminance = throw equations. But I do love coming up with battery solutions: Here is a pack idea for that 7,000 Watt light: 33x High Power Polymer Li-Ion flat cells arranged in two packs next to each other would make a pack: 6.82 inches tall x 4.8 inches wide x and only 6.3 inches long. It’s weight would be 15 pounds and would have 10Ah of capacity at a bit over 120 volts. Max draw of 100A with max continuous draw of 80A “only need 60A”. Run time = 9 minuets 30 seconds. Put this in the back pack with ballast or the ballast on the light. To put it into comparisons I can carry a 40 pound backpack filled with SLAs when using my 1000 watt GE light, so 15 pounds is nothing! The only real problem is price = $2,046 through I think you would agree even if the entire light cost $10,000 how can anyone compete with 650,000 Lumens 5 mile plus throw all portable by one man! I can’t be completely sure, but I swear I saw somewhere that BHV’s AA spotlight was like 535,000 Lumens, so I’ll let you figure out why this would be the most epic thing ever!


----------



## SemiMan (Jan 24, 2010)

Could anyone comment on the accuracy of the reflectors, especially over temperature. While luminosity of the central spot is certainly critical to throw, accuracy of the reflector certainly will be as well. Any comments?

Semiman


----------



## get-lit (Jan 24, 2010)

Yes that is the ad for the reflectors I briefly checked out.

An XSTAGE light would be the best thrower because of the high average luminance values. Actually, the 2000W and 3000W versions would throw just as far if not a bit further than the 7000W, just with less light. For a portable application, either the 2000W or the 3000W would be all you would need.

The 3000 W has the highest calculated average luminance of the bunch (luminous intensity divided by luminance area surface area), closely followed by the 2000W. Both the 2000W and the 3000W lamps and ballasts would be MUCH more affordable than the 7000W. Overall, I would probably prefer the 2000 W for portability. That's about the limit for being able to use the light in automobiles and boats with "practical" high amp alternators. The 2000 W would throw more than twice as far as the SMH-850 with 14% more light, _*but*_ with 235% of the power consumption. I don't know how any of the XSTAGE lamps could ever be made portable though, because even the smallest 2000W is 11.8" long and 1.83" in diameter! You'd have to resort to a reflector alignment method, and a zoomable lamp mount would be off the table.



SemiMan said:


> Could anyone comment on the accuracy of the reflectors, especially over temperature. While luminosity of the central spot is certainly critical to throw, accuracy of the reflector certainly will be as well. Any comments?


 
That is my concern as well. Spec sheets for precision reflectors usually list accuracy ranges. That's helpful to know how close the tolerances are, but I'm not sure how well that reflects how true they are to a perfect parabola.


----------



## get-lit (Jan 24, 2010)

Ok, I calculated the relative average throw for the XSTAGE lamps and compared them to the SMH-850. The XSTAGE specs say the 3000 W can throw 18% further than the XSTAGE 2000 W, while the calculated relative throws actually show that the XSTAGE 2000 W would throw 10% further than the XSTAGE 3000 W. The XSTAGE 2000 W would also throw 80% further than the SMH-850, so not quite twice the distance.

The XSTAGE 2000 W is an awesome lamp. I'm just not sure if 2.35 times the power consumption would be worth the extra 80% throw over the SMH-850 in a portable application. Not to mention the major lamp size difference, and all the extra bulk and weight of the ballast for that kind of power would be tremendous.

Watt per watt, short arc Xenon ballasts are MUCH larger and heavier than Mercury lamp ballasts for Emarc lamps because short arc Xenon lamps are high current low voltage, while Emarc Mercury lamps are low current high voltage. It's the current that makes the ballasts large and heavy. So while a ballast for an 850W Emarc can be small and just a few lbs, a ballast for a 2000W Xenon would take up nearly 1 cubit foot and would be much too heavy to be portable. *Sticking with the Emarc SMH-850. For a practical portable mega search light, it can't get any better.*


----------



## get-lit (Feb 3, 2010)

Quick update.. the design is moving along. There's a lot of exciting new options for portable batteries using LiFePo4 technology. For instance the pack below would power the light at 1000W total for 2 hours, and of course smaller packs can be made as well.


----------



## Juggernaut (Feb 8, 2010)

What are the dimensions on that pack?, if you don’t mind.


----------



## get-lit (Feb 10, 2010)

12.8"L x 7.4"W x 11.8"H, so roughly .6 cubit feet. That's an amazing amount of power in something that size. I'll likely come up with a version 1/4 the size that can power the lamp for 1/2 hour, something about the size of a phone book would be very easy to carry.

As far as the light, almost all of the parts have been sourced now, and there are LOTS of them. I will also be sourcing CNC work for several parts. I've come up with some pretty innovative features that I can't wait to show everyone. It's definitely a day-by-day effort with lot of refinements along the way, and I'm very excited that when all is said and done, this will be among the most refined and powerful devices I've laid eyes on. It will be fully servicable and not afraid of the weather in the least bit. Once the light is complete, I will be completing all certifications as well, so everything will be on the up and up as far as that goes.

This lamp technology is a lot more sensitive to temperature than the Xenon short arc types. The lamp ends must remain cool while the internal gas temperature has to remain hot, so it's not the typical simple matter of making sure you have enough cooling; too much will disrupt the lamp performance as well. Since this is intended for use across a wide range of outdoor temperatures from below zero to 100+, I'm devising a tunable closed-loop fan control circuit with temperature sensing.

Also, because I want the light to ventilate properly in high winds, I'm using specially designed fans that have very high static pressure, upwards of 100 times more static pressure than the typical PC case fan. As it stands, the light will be using dual 18,000 RPM fans. That will sound damn mean!


----------



## tab665 (Feb 28, 2010)

hey get-lit, just wondering if any of your parts have made it back in yet, or if theres any other updates.


----------



## richardcpf (Mar 1, 2010)

get-lit said:


> For instance the pack below would power the light at 1000W total for 2 hours


 
I think this battery pack holds more power than the one in my Pius :twothumbs

And it is used to power a flashlight.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 4, 2010)

tab665 said:


> hey get-lit, just wondering if any of your parts have made it back in yet, or if theres any other updates.


 
No updates at the moment. I had to take some time away to catch up with other life issues for a while. I'd say I'm still tracking at under a year away. Thanks for the patience.




richardcpf said:


> I think this battery pack holds more power than the one in my Pius :twothumbs
> 
> And it is used to power a flashlight.


 
LOL, ah but not just a flashlight; the most efficient searchlight that can bleach your paint, rot out the interior, and turn the molding to dust :rock:


----------



## Apollo Cree (Mar 5, 2010)

richardcpf said:


> I think this battery pack holds more power than the one in my Pius :twothumbs
> 
> And it is used to power a flashlight.




Well, in some ways, a Prius could be considered to be a really neat host to build a really high power flashlight.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 5, 2010)

This already will be that high power light. The battery pack in post #221 at 2 kwh is already more powerful than the standard Prius at 1.3 to 1.6 kwh :laughing:


----------



## DM51 (Mar 7, 2010)

richardcpf said:


> I think this battery pack holds more power than the one in my *Pius*


You own a *Pope-mobile??* Wow! LOL


----------



## Bimmerboy (Mar 7, 2010)

richardcpf said:


> I think this battery pack holds more power than the one in my Pius





DM51 said:


> You own a *Pope-mobile??* Wow! LOL


Hahahaha... glad someone found another joke in there. I was sooo tempted to poke fun at the "green movement" the other night when I saw this, but held back. 

Still here, Get-lit. Can hardly wait to see this thing in action!


----------

