# Anything out ther brighter at a distance than our flashlight?



## enginyr (Apr 7, 2010)

We use a CBT-90 LED with 4D 11,000mah batteries. Our technology uses light recycling and a 50mm aspheric. How do you add a picture?


----------



## cistallus (Apr 8, 2010)

:welcome:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/227442


----------



## BeeMan458 (Apr 8, 2010)

:welcome:

Do you have a link to your product page?


----------



## jirik_cz (Apr 8, 2010)

There is always something brighter  From my experience SST-90 with 50mm aspherical will have less than 50k lux.


----------



## John_Galt (Apr 8, 2010)

Wait, is this a question on a product, or an advertisement? I believe the rules state that advertising a product is not allowed.


----------



## enginyr (Apr 8, 2010)

How can it be an advertisement if I haven't even showed anything yet. lol

Anyways its just a prototype. We license the technology to produce a very narrow angle beam with high efficiencies. Kinda like 3M. We made a prototype just to show what "light recycling" is all about.


----------



## enginyr (Apr 8, 2010)

jirik_cz said:


> There is always something brighter  From my experience SST-90 with 50mm aspherical will have less than 50k lux.



*CBT-90-W*

_*Introduction*_

The CBT-90 White Series LEDs are presently available in a chip-on-board (CoB) package, non-lensed. Developed to provide a product configuration that is both easy to integrate as well as to provide a package architecture that allows the LED’s to be operated at levels not seen in the market. 

_*Features*_ 

High Output – 800 lumens (6500K at high efficiency) or up to 2200 lumens (6500K at full output)
Large, single chip with an emitting surface area of 9.0 mm2
High thermal conductivity package with a package thermal resistance of only 0.8° C/W
Integrated thermistor allows for real-time monitoring of the LED’s temperature
Lumen maintenance of greater than 70% after 60,000 hours
Variable drive current from less than 1 A to 13 A
Available in a variety of Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT’s) per ANSI C78-377-2008
Designed with a standard on-board connector
 
_*Benefits*_



Allows designers to replace LED arrays with a single LED
Single high output LED source simplifies system design (optics, power, control, etc.)
Non-lensed design allows for easy integration with specialized secondary optics
Instant “ON” eliminates the warm-up time typically seen with traditional light sources
Mercury-free, RoHS compliant environmentally-friendly technology
Outstanding reliability and durability beyond what traditional, glass-based light sources can achieve
Lumen output range that can provide industry standard efficiency as well as industry leading light output from a single package


----------



## kingofwylietx (Apr 8, 2010)

We won't know until his next post or next few posts. Right now, we don't even know how "bright" his light even is...yet.


----------



## jk037 (Apr 8, 2010)

John_Galt said:


> Wait, is this a question on a product, or an advertisement? I believe the rules state that advertising a product is not allowed.


 
Since he's posted no links, brand or model names - just a small selection of technical data - I don't see how it could possibly be considered an advertisement. :thinking:

Something of a vague question though - to make anything approaching an accurate comparison you'd have to take lux readings from the OP's light and it's nearest competitors at a fixed distance, in the same conditions (i.e. on the same night) and using the same lux meter. And even then it comes down to how you perceive "brightness" - a tightly-focused light could give a higher lux reading than a more floody model even if the tightly-focused one produces fewer actual lumens, if you get my drift?

The beam from my $3, 5mW laser pointer is much "brighter" at 200 metres than that from my car's 55-watt halogen headlights, but the tiny spot of light from the laser is no use at all for illuminating anything.


----------



## stallion2 (Apr 8, 2010)

describing something as being "brighter" still says surprisingly little. your run of the mill XR-E w/ an appropriate lens or optic will give a higher lux reading than an SST-90.


----------



## alpg88 (Apr 8, 2010)

i think he is refering to Luminus *CBT-90 and 4d nimh cells*


----------



## luke_DF (Apr 8, 2010)

Who's "we" anyway? Sounds a little like the Borg!


----------



## enginyr (Apr 8, 2010)

http://www.enginyr.com/content/bin/images/large/20090501_CLEARLY_WAVIEN.jpg

*[over-size image replaced by link - please read Rule 3. - DM51]*


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 8, 2010)

sounds interesting....
Send one to cpf member bigchelis. Hes the only one with a calibrated sphere... and he tests for steady-state lumens not instant-peak.

Good Luck bringing it to market!!
:thumbsup:


----------



## hyperloop (Apr 8, 2010)

*ǝlıʇnɟ sı ǝɔuɐʇsısǝɹ*


----------



## stallion2 (Apr 8, 2010)

NO!!!!!!!! SEND ME A DEMO, I HAVE AN SR90 TO COMPARE IT TO. IT'S THE CURRENT HIGH WATER MARK FOR LEDs SO WHY NOT. THEN I'LL SEND IT TO BIGCHELIS FOR TESTING....PROMISE.


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 9, 2010)

stallion2 said:


> NO!!!!!!!! SEND ME A DEMO, I HAVE AN SR90 TO COMPARE IT TO. IT'S THE CURRENT HIGH WATER MARK FOR LEDs SO WHY NOT. THEN I'LL SEND IT TO BIGCHELIS FOR TESTING....PROMISE.



 OP


----------



## enginyr (Apr 9, 2010)

We have a lumens meter here. It will hit about 700-800 on a fresh set of batteries? We can a hold 1-2 degree angle and our spot is either rectangular and it will image the LED or circular if we use a light pipe or light recycling collar.


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 9, 2010)

enginyr said:


> We have a lumens meter here. It will hit about 700-800 on a fresh set of batteries but *the true lumens test is how tight a spot you can achieve at a distance.* Is there such a standard set ? We can a hold 1-2 degree angle and our spot is either rectangular and it will image the LED or circular if we use a light pipe or light recycling collar.



This is incorrect... a lumen test needs to be performed in an integrating sphere. It is the total sum of emitted light from a source.

The brightness of spot at a given distance is the Lux, not Lumen output.

There is no such thing as a "lumen meter"... At least not without an integrating sphere to accompany it.


----------



## enginyr (Apr 9, 2010)

SST-90 is a 30watt LED. CBT-90 is a 50watt LED


----------



## bullettproof (Apr 9, 2010)

enginyr said:


> We have a lumens meter here. It will hit about 700-800 on a fresh set of batteries but the true lumens test is how tight a spot you can achieve at a distance. Is there such a standard set ? We can a hold 1-2 degree angle and our spot is either rectangular and it will image the LED or circular if we use a light pipe or light recycling collar.



Do a 1meter and 5meter LUX test thats whats common around here.


----------



## enginyr (Apr 9, 2010)

kramer5150 said:


> This is incorrect... a lumen test needs to be performed in an integrating sphere. It is the total sum of emitted light from a source.
> 
> The brightness of spot at a given distance is the Lux, not Lumen output.



You are correct. I am a mechanical engineer. still learning the optics side 

I'm sure you understood that the true test is lighting an object at a distance.


----------



## bullettproof (Apr 9, 2010)

How much do these cost? Also are they in production? Where are they made USA?


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 9, 2010)

enginyr said:


> You are correct. I am a mechanical engineer. still learning the optics side
> 
> I'm sure you understood that the true test is lighting an object at a distance.




:twothumbs


----------



## enginyr (Apr 9, 2010)

bullettproof said:


> Do a 1meter and 5meter LUX test thats whats common around here.



What is the highest Lux so far at 1 and 5 meters?


----------



## enginyr (Apr 9, 2010)

bullettproof said:


> How much do these cost? Also are they in production? Where are they made USA?



Custom machined locally in California. Not available for purchase.


----------



## bullettproof (Apr 9, 2010)

enginyr said:


> What is the highest Lux so far at 1 and 5 meters?



So far from a single Die XR-E led which is only around 275 lumens I believe its 156,000 Lux. Saabluster is the builder the Deft is the light.Now there are other lights that can beet it but Lumen to Lux ratio it cant be beat.


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 9, 2010)

For all who are interested...

http://www.wavien.com/

Wavien is involved in the 3D motion picture/theater lighting industries, a USA/California based company in Valencia... an hour from Fountain Valley.

Keep us posted on your progress! I have no problem supporting a California-USA based company.

:thumbsup:


----------



## bullettproof (Apr 9, 2010)

I looked it up already. Kramer whats the light the guy had taken to Europe and it was lighting up a house 6.5Km away like daylight.You know what Im talking about?


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 9, 2010)

bullettproof said:


> I looked it up already. Kramer whats the light the guy had taken to Europe and it was lighting up a house 6.5Km away like daylight.You know what Im talking about?



Thats a new one by me.... almost sounds like a (insert Dr. Evil voice) "Giant Laser Beam".


----------



## enginyr (Apr 9, 2010)

http://www.premienled.com/

This is how we "recycle" the LED light.

Typically the led will yield a wide beam. We use a "reflective" collar and bounce the light back on the the led which double and sometime triples the light output especially when a narrow beam is desired.


----------



## bullettproof (Apr 9, 2010)

enginyr said:


> http://www.premienled.com/
> 
> This is how we "recycle" the LED light.
> 
> Typically the led will yield a wide beam. We use a "reflective" collar and bounce the light back on the the led which double and sometime triples the light output especially when a narrow beam is desired.



So its similar to a Surefire TIR Optic?


----------



## Jash (Apr 9, 2010)

Seems like a bit of chest beating going on here.

If they're not for sale, what's the point? 

I can read about all sorts of wonderful ways to deliver light from a light source, but if I can't buy it, don't try and sell it to me.

Make something we can buy that's better than what we've got and you'll be a popular chap.


----------



## turboBB (Apr 9, 2010)

It's not an optic:
http://www.premienled.com/index.php/led-recycling-module

Interesting... however (and mind you I'm not an engineer by any means so please don't flame me), I can't see how the "recycling" of light would amplify it by redirecting it back to LED unless the LED itself was also a reflector and not an emitter... unless the gold plated contacts the LED is sitting on is acting as the reflector? :thinking:

In this case, wouldn't the use of an optic on top of this further amplify the beam even more?

I'm all for any advances we can get out of LEDs and will be keeping an eye on this thread. Best of luck with your product!

EDIT: @ Jash, FWIW, while it's not the whole light, you can purchase the module from the link above.

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## jirik_cz (Apr 9, 2010)

turboBB said:


> Interesting... however (and mind you I'm not an engineer by any means so please don't flame me), I can't see how the "recycling" of light would amplify it by redirecting it back to LED unless the LED itself was also a reflector and not an emitter... unless the gold plated contacts the LED is sitting on is acting as the reflector? :thinking:



+1 
Difficult to imagine how this could work 



bullettproof said:


> I looked it up already. Kramer whats the light the guy had taken to Europe and it was lighting up a house 6.5Km away like daylight.You know what Im talking about?



You are probably reffering to the Maxablaster


----------



## Noctis (Apr 9, 2010)

Jash said:


> Seems like a bit of chest beating going on here.
> 
> If they're not for sale, what's the point?
> 
> ...


Agreed. I personally have my eyes on a DEFT myself. But then I find myself wondering if my 150mW green laser can't accomplish much the same(I'll bet the lux is higher too).


----------



## enginyr (Apr 9, 2010)

turboBB said:


> It's not an optic:
> http://www.premienled.com/index.php/led-recycling-module
> 
> Interesting... however (and mind you I'm not an engineer by any means so please don't flame me), I can't see how the "recycling" of light would amplify it by redirecting it back to LED unless the LED itself was also a reflector and not an emitter... unless the gold plated contacts the LED is sitting on is acting as the reflector? :thinking:
> ...


----------



## enginyr (Apr 9, 2010)

bullettproof said:


> So its similar to a Surefire TIR Optic?



I believe they put a large lens close to an led which is not really the same.


----------



## bullettproof (Apr 9, 2010)

enginyr said:


> I too was baffled how this works. By the reflecting the light back on to the phosphor, reinvigorates the substrate and produces even more light. Trust me it works. We have a device that puts our "recycling collar" on a LED and doubles the output real-time.




You should send one of these over to one of the big name guys on this forum that can test this out. If you want solidity with your product here.

Heres a few people that I would trust and are gurus here.

Luxluthor
Bigchellis
Nailbender
Macs Customs
Moddoo
MilkySpit


----------



## John_Galt (Apr 9, 2010)

Are you saying that heating the phosphor in the LED (from the energy of the photons striking the phosphor) is amking the LED more efficient? Because that would be incorrect. LED's are more efficient at lower currents than higher ones, and do not like to be heated.

I think your "light recycler" is actually just making the aperture the light is able to come out of smaller, thus increasing lux readings, but probably significantly decreasing lumen output. It's an interesting, out of the box idea, but it doesn't "recycle" light, it just concentrates it more (similar to an optic) in a smaller space than an optic, thus decreasing the length of the overall unit.


I still think you're confusing lux and lumens. And I agree that this device should be tested by one of the guru's here. BigChellis is at the top of my list, as far as an integrating sphere...


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Apr 9, 2010)

bullettproof said:


> I looked it up already. Kramer whats the light the guy had taken to Europe and it was lighting up a house 6.5Km away like daylight.You know what Im talking about?



You're probably thinking of Ra's Maxablaster. Over 50 million candlepower 

link to those beamshots


----------



## enginyr (Apr 9, 2010)

Our main patent is the "DPR" Dual Parabolic Reflector. We put two parabolic 1/2's together and it will yield double the lifetime of arcing bulbs. 

When a typical arc burns the electrode away it reduces output.

http://spie.org/x8812.xml?ArticleID=x8812


----------



## passive101 (Apr 9, 2010)

The concept doesn't seem to make sense to me on how it actually is increasing output.


----------



## easilyled (Apr 9, 2010)

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating" as they say in the UK.


----------



## jslappa (Apr 9, 2010)

I'm surprised to see so many people questioning, almost in a disrespectful way, an electrical engineer about a product and process which has been patented. How about first asking for the link to the publicly available pantent docs? It sounds to me like the light that would have become the spill is being reflected back to the center, effectively causing the lux to increase in the hotspot. But since I don't have a formal education in Optics, I wouldn't dream of challenging someone.

With that, I would love to see BigChelis run one through it's paces, as well as some looooong beamshots.


----------



## Qoose (Apr 9, 2010)

The main thing thats bothering me about DPR right now is this one picture. http://www.wavien.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=54

The black reflector trough, the beam tracing looks good until the two beams meet at the end, at which point they somehow intersect and change direction and merge forward. Unless my quantum is broken, that picture is going to bug me.


----------



## 65535 (Apr 9, 2010)

Qoose said:


> The main thing thats bothering me about DPR right now is this one picture. http://www.wavien.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=54
> 
> The black reflector trough, the beam tracing looks good until the two beams meet at the end, at which point they somehow intersect and change direction and merge forward. Unless my quantum is broken, that picture is going to bug me.




It wouldn't be hard to have an optic there, whether or not that is the case, is also whether or not that picture makes sense at all.


----------



## Brasso (Apr 9, 2010)

I think I understand the picture. But why not just direct all the light straight out instead of reflecting it back? Or is this just to intensify the "hot spot". I can see how it would do that, increasing the lux. But not increasing the total lumen output.


----------



## John_Galt (Apr 9, 2010)

I'm personally going to have to call BS. 

You are offering a product that doesn't seem to be for sale, using technology that doesn't make sense logically, and seem to have a hard time differentiating between your terminology. You also have not linked to any very informative sights... Merely product "idea" sights.

Also your approach to cooling your light seems like an easily damaged thing. Instead of trying to increase surface area, or just under-driving your light and trying to find a more efficient method of utilizing the available light, you claim to "overdrive" a high output, low efficiency LED, thus causing even more problems in your product. I realize this is probably meant as a long distance spot light/search light, but couldn't you have designed a system that would enable a nearly full output at start up, but then gradually dimmed over a period of time from full output to, say, 50% of original output, or less, depending upon how hot the heat-sink and LED are getting? The period of time could be such that the end user wouldn't notice the drop in output, it would extend run-time greatly, and mean that active cooling would not be necessary (if you were to also increase the surface area)...


I would love to see links to your patents, both for your light recycler, and your cooling system.

Also, forgive me if I'm wrong, but is this a complete "product?" I ask, because it appears you have designed a head unit for a "D" cell maglite, from the pictures on your site...


----------



## John_Galt (Apr 9, 2010)

enginyr said:


> Our main patent is the "DPR" Dual Parabolic Reflector. We put two parabolic 1/2's together and it will yield *double the lifetime of arcing bulbs. *
> 
> When a typical arc burns the electrode away it reduces output.
> 
> http://spie.org/x8812.xml?ArticleID=x8812




How does a reflector increase a bulbs lifespan? And what does this have to do with the current thread topic, except as another "patented" idea that makes no logical sense...


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 9, 2010)

enginyr said:


> I too was baffled how this works. By the reflecting the light back on to the phosphor, reinvigorates the substrate and produces even more light. Trust me it works. We have a device that puts our "recycling collar" on a LED and doubles the output real-time.



So by directing side emitted light back at the LED die... you increase the LEDs efficiency?

But don't you loose that re-directed light? I don't see how you can create more light out of the re-directed light.

I mean no dis-respect, I am merely inquisitively questioning... how this technology works. Your design as you describe it, defies the law of conservation of energy.


----------



## enginyr (Apr 9, 2010)

I really wish I could answer all of your questions. My main purpose was to find out if there is another flash light out there. In collaboration with texas instraments and osram you should see Wavien's DPR and Recycling Collar technology in future flash lights or Projector. 

If there is any flash light companies that would like to license the "recycling collar" please visit http://premienled.com/

and visit the contact us

Here

We can take an LED and double it's output in narrow beam applications.

Here is another design we are making 7 50watt LED's but not battery powered. More for a spot light application.


----------



## alpg88 (Apr 9, 2010)

John_Galt said:


> Are you saying that heating the phosphor in the LED (from the energy of the photons striking the phosphor) is amking the LED more efficient? Because that would be incorrect. LED's are more efficient at lower currents than higher ones, and do not like to be heated.
> 
> ...


well, if you shine a laser on a led, (non burning laser) it wont get any hotter than it was before you shine a laser on it, and laser beam creates a lot more energy of the photons striking the phosphor, than the led itself.
so how it is heating up???


----------



## John_Galt (Apr 9, 2010)

alpg88 said:


> well, if you shine a laser on a led, (non burning laser) it wont get any hotter than it was before you shine a laser on it, and laser beam creates a lot more energy of the photons striking the phosphor, than the led itself.
> so how it is heating up???




That's kind of my point, though admittedly ill explained... He stated something about increasing output by putting his light recycler thing on it, but didn't say anything about whether it increased lux or lumens...


----------



## John_Galt (Apr 9, 2010)

enginyr said:


> I really wish I could answer all of your questions. My main purpose was to find out if there is another flash light out there. In collaboration with texas instraments and osram you should see Wavien's DPR and Recycling Collar technology in future flash lights or Projector.
> 
> If there is any flash light companies that would like to license the "recycling collar" please visit http://premienled.com/
> 
> ...


 

You guys do realize that at this point (^^^) that going to HID is much more efficient and feasible... LED's excel in relatively low power applications where high efficiency is needed (and attainable). High power LED's have huge challenges facing them, and will continue to be poor choices compared to HID/Incandescent in extremely high output situations such as this, at least until efficiency hits the top end of what is possible, and maybe even then, too...

Just look at your design. No offense at all meant, but jeeze... This is an extremely complicated design that could be much more easily achieved using other technologies. Your design has 7 fans that by design can't be waterproofed, little in the way of surface area (to transfer that heat from the LED to the flowing air), and is going to be a huge power waster.


----------



## alpg88 (Apr 9, 2010)

John_Galt said:


> That's kind of my point, though admittedly ill explained... He stated something about increasing output by putting his light recycler thing on it, but didn't say anything about whether it increased lux or lumens...


 yea kinda confusing.


----------



## alpg88 (Apr 9, 2010)

John_Galt said:


> You guys do realize that at this point (^^^) that going to HID is much more efficient and feasible... LED's excel in relatively low power applications where high efficiency is needed (and attainable). High power LED's have huge challenges facing them, and will continue to be poor choices compared to HID/Incandescent in extremely high output situations such as this, at least until efficiency hits the top end of what is possible, and maybe even then, too...
> 
> Just look at your design. No offense at all meant, but jeeze... This is an extremely complicated design that could be much more easily achieved using other technologies. Your design has 7 fans that by design can't be waterproofed, little in the way of surface area (to transfer that heat from the LED to the flowing air), and is going to be a huge power waster.


 you beat me to it,
350w hid would be a lot simpler, cheaper, and reliable, and it would be bight enough for 99% applications.
i too don't see why i'd choose that over hid.


----------



## enginyr (Apr 9, 2010)

an LED's life is much longer than and HID bulb.


----------



## MrGman (Apr 9, 2010)

enginyr said:


> I really wish I could answer all of your questions. My main purpose was to find out if there is another flash light out there. In collaboration with texas instraments and osram you should see Wavien's DPR and Recycling Collar technology in future flash lights or Projector.
> 
> If there is any flash light companies that would like to license the "recycling collar" please visit http://premienled.com/
> 
> ...


 

So isn't this really a way to introduce and advertise what you are really "selling" here and that is you want to license out your "patented" light collar mechanism and you are looking for a way to introduce and do that. 

This is a solicitation, plain and simple: "If there is any flash light companies that would like to license the "recycling collar" please visit http://premienled.com/" 

The only reason it wasn't all in your first post is that you couldn't get the pictures posted. You are introducing a technology and trying to sell licenses for that technology right here in the discussion forums. 

This entire thread should be moved somewhere else. 

On a totally separate note Big Chelis' integration sphere will not be able to read something of this magnitude. Its limited to about 15 or 16 hundred lumens based on the small size of the sphere and the 20K max foot candle source readings of the meter being used.


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 9, 2010)

enginyr said:


> an LED's life is much longer than and HID bulb.




Not necessarily... a poor thermal design will cook an LED just as easily as any other light source. Most of the SST-50 designs I have seen are what I would consider poor thermal designs... dropping Lumen output a significant amount with thermal warming. I havent seen the SST-90 yet.

Anyone questioning the durability of a well designed HID...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbqk60di6Jg

Discussion closed.


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 9, 2010)

enginyr said:


> I really wish I could answer all of your questions. My main purpose was to find out if there is another flash light out there. In collaboration with texas instraments and osram you should see Wavien's DPR and Recycling Collar technology in future flash lights or Projector.
> 
> If there is any flash light companies that would like to license the "recycling collar" please visit http://premienled.com/
> 
> and visit the contact us



You are probably going to have to level up your knowledge of your product, if you really want to attract business partners and CPF customers.

I mean no dis-respect... honestly.

This is a highly technical forum, generally CPF'ers want to know exactly what they are buying before they shell out.... I would imagine its an even tougher sale with the manufacturers and retailers.

You are asking CPF members to assess your product and compare it with others on the market... but you are not providing sufficient technical detail for anyone to make an accurate assessment.

But good luck regardless.


----------



## enginyr (Apr 9, 2010)

We have a team of PHD's that could handle it better than I. I was just curious to see if someone had an LED flash light like ours. By the way I believe our HID 300 watt DPR put out 11,000 lumens if the application is needed for it. 


There is really no "Product" to compare it to since we don't have a product, but a technology. I just wanted to see if we are the baddest on the block for the time being. At trade shows people say we are but the internet is a larger audience.

Here is a plot of a standard Parabolic reflector vs our Dual parabolic reflector.


----------



## alpg88 (Apr 9, 2010)

than maybe you need to bring team of PHD's that could handle it better than you can. 
also since you don't have a product, but a technology, what are you comparing????? 
you just wanted to see if you are the baddest on the block for the time being?????? in what regards???? 
tell you what, bring to disscussion real product that works in real world, something the size, weight of lets say maxabeam, also bring some PHD's, so THEY can do the talking, and may be you'll find out who's baddest on the block


----------



## Per-Sev (Apr 9, 2010)

I have a old spot light that someone made from a pan and I would put that up against your flashlight. Just because there is a patent on something does not mean its a product that will change the world look at all the patents at the turn of the 20th century they had everything patented that could move and where are most of them now, collectors items.


----------



## Fresh Light (Apr 9, 2010)

Not sure if this is the technology being referred to but here is a patent link.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Pz...urce=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## enginyr (Apr 9, 2010)

http://www.google.com/patents?id=bfKiAAAAEBAJ&printsec=drawing&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## Flashlike (Apr 9, 2010)

This concept is interesting, although it remains to be seen how effective and practical it would be in a flashlight application. . Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds to me like the beam would be an extremely small and concentrated spot with virtually little or no side spill. 

In post #17 of this thread Enginyr said "It runs too hot so we need to fan cool it". If this type of "cooling system" is needed for proper operation it would obviously require more power. Maybe you are going to have more light output but at the expense of requiring more power? 

I'm no engineer and I'm not trying to poke fun of this or argue with any of the claims that have been made, but I honestly don't see how this "invention" is going to be advantageous in a flashlight application. 

The OP has posed the question "Re: Anything out there brighter at a distance than our flashlight?". Tell us how bright your flashlight is, then maybe we can provide an answer! 

Here is another link with some limited information that I found on a Google search: 
http://flashlightnews.org/story2824.shtml


----------



## John_Galt (Apr 9, 2010)

You are going to have to resize your pictures, otherwise a moderator will remove them. The rules of CPF state that the maximum allowable picture size is 600x800 pixels. Resize them immediately, as a courtesy to our members with dial-up internet.


Please, bring out the PHD's, and any fact based information you have on this light design.

As has been stated, CPF is a highly technical forum, and a lot of information and in depth discussion goes into just about every new product that appears on the horizon. We're happy to discuss the various aspects of these designs, and express any concerns we may have with it.


----------



## jp2515 (Apr 9, 2010)

MrGman said:


> So isn't this really a way to introduce and advertise what you are really "selling" here and that is you want to license out your "patented" light collar mechanism and you are looking for a way to introduce and do that.
> 
> This is a solicitation, plain and simple: "If there is any flash light companies that would like to license the "recycling collar" please visit http://premienled.com/"
> 
> ...



:thumbsup:



kramer5150 said:


> You are probably going to have to level up your knowledge of your product, if you really want to attract business partners and CPF customers.
> 
> I mean no dis-respect... honestly.
> 
> ...



I still think we need a sample (or samples) to have CPF veterans independently test the lights. All we've seen so far are photos of the lights and no down the front shots either.


----------



## alpg88 (Apr 9, 2010)

wow it looks like they made a head to fit on maglte d tube (from button-tube dimensions i figured it is d tube), that head is huge, a also see holes, i assume there is a fan there, but i might be wrong, at least this head on 4d tube, or longer, would be deadly defence weapon


----------



## WadeF (Apr 9, 2010)

I'm pretty lost with all of this, but is this what they are possibly claiming to be doing? With an aspheric set up you are basically projecting an image of the emitter, so the brighter the emitter is, the brighter it will be projected, giving a higher lux value, more throw, etc. Now, if they are able to take some of the light and reflect it back onto the LED emitter, would they be able to increase the surface brightness of the emitter, and as a result the projected image of the emitter would be brighter?


----------



## recDNA (Apr 9, 2010)

I'd like a graph measuring lumens or lux. I don't know what "brightness" is, how it was measured, and what units are displayed. I find graphs without units annoying.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Apr 9, 2010)

Please resize your picture. Everything is funky.


----------



## bullettproof (Apr 9, 2010)

Wow this op is getting hosed by the big dogs here.:nana:


----------



## Jash (Apr 10, 2010)

bullettproof said:


> Wow this op is getting hosed by the big dogs here.:nana:




Yep, he should've used the search function before coming out all Tarzan and everything. Whoops, that's a small loin cloth you need there mate.

OP, there's an 11k lumen light out there. Made by a nice chap at electrolumens. It's called Kong!

Could one of the mods please remove this as this is clearly advertising.


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 10, 2010)

WadeF said:


> I'm pretty lost with all of this, but is this what they are possibly claiming to be doing? With an aspheric set up you are basically projecting an image of the emitter, so the brighter the emitter is, the brighter it will be projected, giving a higher lux value, more throw, etc. Now, if they are able to take some of the light and reflect it back onto the LED emitter, would they be able to increase the surface brightness of the emitter, and as a result the projected image of the emitter would be brighter?



That makes more sense than anything the OP has posted thus far. Although I don't think phosphor die surfaces are reflective (someone please correct me). If this is in fact what they are doing, I question the thermal design. I can shine my Malkoff onto my wrist and feel the heat from the light. If this is in fact what they are doing, it does not surprise me that the OP reports thermal issues.

OP KILL THAT HUGE IMAGE... or at least thumbnail it.


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 10, 2010)

bullettproof said:


> Wow this op is getting hosed by the big dogs here.:nana:



 it wouldn't be the first time. There's some sharp knives in this drawer... better get your facts straight before posting them.


----------



## Patriot (Apr 10, 2010)

This thread is awful in technical merit and the aggravating, over-sized image in post #62 is the tar on top of the poo-poo. It's obvious that the OP doesn't understand the difference between total emitted output and lux. This thread is further complicated by the fact that the "DPR" technology/patent has nothing to do with the original LED topic, which not every poster here has realized, understandably, unless they've wasted their time here as I have. He has tossed us the company's two main technologies/marketing themes and blended them together here in order to drive interest toward specific areas to their own benefit. If this wasn't evident already consider the OP's post introducing the 7 50W LED cluster, which by the way is a "meltdown" waiting to happen. 

I still can't believe that I spent the time reading this....


----------



## enginyr (Apr 10, 2010)

WadeF said:


> I'm pretty lost with all of this, but is this what they are possibly claiming to be doing? With an aspheric set up you are basically projecting an image of the emitter, so the brighter the emitter is, the brighter it will be projected, giving a higher lux value, more throw, etc. Now, if they are able to take some of the light and reflect it back onto the LED emitter, would they be able to increase the surface brightness of the emitter, and as a result the projected image of the emitter would be brighter?



correct.


----------



## enginyr (Apr 10, 2010)

We just run it a bit higher in voltage than it's rated for. We cool it down sufficiently to compensate and it will run constantly, slightly warm to the touch.


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 10, 2010)

enginyr said:


> correct.




OK...
Your posts above are incorrect then. You are not increasing the output of the LED by doing this. You are merely salvaging stray or lost lumens and re-directing them.

If you really want to understand the optical efficiency of your design. Your PHDs need to measure the output of the bare emitter in a calibrated sphere. Then measure the lumen output of the system with the reflective optics. The difference in lumen output will show the overall efficiency of the optics.


----------



## John_Galt (Apr 10, 2010)

enginyr said:


> We just run it a bit higher in voltage than it's rated for. We cool it down sufficiently to compensate and it will run constantly, slightly warm to the touch.




First, as you guys will undoubtedly find out... LED's aren't voltage driven. They're current driven. Driving more voltage into an LED is a failure waiting to happen, as is over-driving the emitter significantly...

You guys also need to rethink your cooling system in both designs. Using fans is a horrible idea. They waste power, increase size, increase complexity, have a short life span (relatively), and are a huge point of failure, possibly destroying the LED and driver if it fails, from the inability to cool itself effectively.

:shakehead


I also agree with Kramers last point.


----------



## Batou00159 (Apr 10, 2010)

easilyled said:


> "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" as they say in the UK.


 

And i see no pudding yet










Mmmmmmmmm pudding


----------



## easilyled (Apr 10, 2010)

Time to unsubscribe from this thread. Bye-Bye :wave:


----------



## enginyr (Apr 10, 2010)

kramer5150 said:


> OK...
> Your posts above are incorrect then. You are not increasing the output of the LED by doing this. You are merely salvaging stray or lost lumens and re-directing them.
> 
> If you really want to understand the optical efficiency of your design. Your PHDs need to measure the output of the bare emitter in a calibrated sphere. Then measure the lumen output of the system with the reflective optics. The difference in lumen output will show the overall efficiency of the optics.



We have the ratio of about 2,200 lumens bare and about 700-800 lumens into a lumens sphere. I tried testing it at one meter with a lux meter but it when off the chart. At 5 meters it was about 10,000 lux but batteries weren't charged fully. The optics guys here said you can't just measure lux at a distance without measuring the entire area also.

_Your posts above are incorrect then. You are not increasing the output of the LED by doing this. You are merely salvaging stray or lost lumens and re-directing them._

Yes that is exactly what the patent does. The final effect is higher led output.


----------



## enginyr (Apr 10, 2010)

John_Galt said:


> First, as you guys will undoubtedly find out... LED's aren't voltage driven. They're current driven. Driving more voltage into an LED is a failure waiting to happen, as is over-driving the emitter significantly...
> 
> You guys also need to rethink your cooling system in both designs. Using fans is a horrible idea. They waste power, increase size, increase complexity, have a short life span (relatively), and are a huge point of failure, possibly destroying the LED and driver if it fails, from the inability to cool itself effectively.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the tip. I did the mechanical design. They did all the electrical and optical. I would have loved to use a fanless design but the heat was too great along with the shear mass of a heat sink would be prohibitive. We have a dual stacked maglev fans that are redundant. These are prototypes just to prove the technology. Final products should be fully redesigned for mass production.


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 10, 2010)

**EDIT**
I haev retraced my commentary in this post. It was a little rude and impolite. it was a gut-reaction.

Sorry about that.


----------



## gswitter (Apr 10, 2010)

alpg88 said:


> wow it looks like they made a head to fit on maglte d tube (from button-tube dimensions i figured it is d tube), that head is huge, a also see holes, i assume there is a fan there, but i might be wrong, at least this head on 4d tube, or longer, would be deadly defence weapon





John_Galt said:


> You guys also need to rethink your cooling system in both designs. Using fans is a horrible idea. They waste power, increase size, increase complexity, have a short life span (relatively), and are a huge point of failure, possibly destroying the LED and driver if it fails, from the inability to cool itself effectively.
> 
> :shakehead





enginyr said:


> *Anyways its just a prototype.*



Back to the OP's original question...

Some of our members have gotten together in LA and done high output light shoot outs. Here's a couple threads on (if I recall correctly) the most recent: thread, thread. Their focus hasn't been LED lights, but LEDs have only just gotten to the point that they could (maybe) compete. If you're looking to answer your original question, some of those members might be worth contacting.

I'm curious to see if you're truly getting that much throw from the CBT-50. Getting great throw from LEDs with larger surface area has frustrated quite a few members here.


----------



## enginyr (Apr 10, 2010)

gswitter said:


> Back to the OP's original question...
> 
> Some of our members have gotten together in LA and done high output light shoot outs. Here's a couple threads on (if I recall correctly) the most recent: thread, thread. Their focus hasn't been LED lights, but LEDs have only just gotten to the point that they could (maybe) compete. If you're looking to answer your original question, some of those members might be worth contacting.
> 
> I'm curious to see if you're truly getting that much throw from the CBT-50. Getting great throw from LEDs with larger surface area has frustrated quite a few members here.



CBT-90 is what we use. Regardless we can use our recycling collar on any led. 

Thank you. I will sign up for the meet. 

I'm signing off here since my intelligence is not up to par. 

Thank you for the gracious welcome.


----------



## BigusLightus (Apr 10, 2010)

I need a reality check. I must remember there is no perpetual motion. Period.

Just like radio frequencies, light can be focused/concentrated in many ways. There may even be ways that we have not yet found. I think this is just a case of minimizing losses and focusing into an intense tiny hotspot that throws well.

There may be something out there brighter at a distance. But we won't know til this company brings out some hardware to test. The question seems pointless to me. In the CPF community we have many contenders for the long throw crown but until we can do a real comparison the argument is again pointless.

So, if you are going to challenge CPF'rs to a light fight, please know your weapon better. And, actually have one to test and show.

James 
KF4WXH

If it works you will probably make a lot of friends real fast.


----------



## bullettproof (Apr 10, 2010)

enginyr said:


> CBT-90 is what we use. Regardless we can use our recycling collar on any led.
> 
> Thank you. I will sign up for the meet.
> 
> ...



Honestly there are a lot of people on here that really know there poop when it comes to building reliable lights that are complex. I gave you a list of names to contact some of which might be near your location. 

I assure you it would be worth your time to talk with these good people.I think it would be of benefit for all parties to learn from each other.:welcome:


----------



## jirik_cz (Apr 10, 2010)

enginyr said:


> I tried testing it at one meter with a lux meter but it when off the chart. At 5 meters it was about 10,000 lux but batteries weren't charged fully. The optics guys here said you can't just measure lux at a distance without measuring the entire area also.



10k lux at 5 meters is a good value. That means 250 000 candela or 250 000 lux at 1 meter.

Beamshots ?


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 10, 2010)

enginyr said:


> We have the ratio of about 2,200 lumens bare and about 700-800 lumens into a lumens sphere. I tried testing it at one meter with a lux meter but it when off the chart. At 5 meters it was about 10,000 lux but batteries weren't charged fully. The optics guys here said you can't just measure lux at a distance without measuring the entire area also.
> 
> _Your posts above are incorrect then. You are not increasing the output of the LED by doing this. You are merely salvaging stray or lost lumens and re-directing them._
> 
> Yes that is exactly what the patent does. The final effect is higher led output.



... but simply re-directing the light output does not increase the output from the LED, it does not make the LED die any brighter. The LED is still emitting the same amount of light, with or without the optic system.

I have retracted my previous statement / post... It was rude. Sorry about that.

Hopefully we will see some production runs in the future.


----------



## BigusLightus (Apr 10, 2010)

The DPR pic reminds me of the rear firing speaker cabinets from the 70's. Those were also designed for more efficient throw. Is it possible that the one third loss we commonly apply to emitter ratings just dropped a bit with this setup?


----------



## MrGman (Apr 10, 2010)

enginyr said:


> You are correct. I am a mechanical engineer. still learning the optics side
> 
> I'm sure you understood that the true test is lighting an object at a distance.


 

This guy claims to be a mechanical engineer with no or very little understanding of optics (his own claim, from this and other posts he has made). 

Most of his answers about the performance of this light have been questionable at best. 

It still appears to me that his company is trying to advertise and sell licensing rights on his light collar device. 

He has not yet seemed interested at all in getting an answer to his original thread question as to is there anything brighter out there! Especially since the main point would have been to have correctly posted lux numbers from the very beginning and ask is there something out there that is higher from a LED type light source. We haven't gotten a straight answer out of him yet about real lux numbers, or the differences between lux and lumens. If this was so important why aren't the "optics guys" the ones posting the questions and answers here?

I say this entire thing is bogus. If they knew what their actual downrange lux readings were they could simply look up what's published on Light-Reviews and see that they are brighter. This guy is fishing for something here but his answers are so convoluted its hard to know what.


----------



## Jash (Apr 11, 2010)

Maybe what I'm about to say is a little off topic but once read you'll understand.

The OP has already achieved 'enlightened' status and clearly shows a lack of knowledge and enthusiasm for hand held lighting. I know that your number of posts raises your status, but in a forum like this where folks are seriously interested in their devotion to flashlights, there should be a question-are with a minimum number of correct answers to go to the next level, or something like that. 

I often read questions (eg. can I use rcr123's in that?) from people who have made over 900 posts who should know the answer simply by being in here so much.

I've only been a member since late last year and can already tell you the specs on most lights between $40-200. And I only venture in here a couple of times a week.

I've said that now, won't bring it up again.


----------



## Batou00159 (Apr 13, 2010)

MrGman said:


> This guy is fishing for something here but his answers are so convoluted its hard to know what.




this is highly probable


----------



## enginyr (Apr 13, 2010)

Hold tight fellas. One of our optics guys will log on and explain the technology asap. Sorry for the weak answers!


----------



## thezug (Apr 13, 2010)

It appears there is some confusion as to the performance and capabilities of our technology. Maybe I can clear things up a bit. 

The light recycling retro-reflector redirects light back to the phosphor of the white LED. Some light is re-emitted to the aperture, some to the reflector again and some is absorbed. The result is more light through the aperture and a warmer color temperature.

The output (lumens) of a system such as this narrow beam flashlight is increased by light recycling. If we compare the output of this flashlight with and without the reflector, it's about double. It could be more with a different LED and/or lens but the important thing is, the reflector increases output.

The 50mm lens is about F/1. The LED is a Luminous CBT-90. If we're getting around 800 lumens, that should give you all you need to know about brightness, LUX, radiance, whatever. Technically, this reflector can improve the performance of any LED and lens combination.


----------



## MrGman (Apr 13, 2010)

So you are saying you measured 800 lumens out the front with the asperic lens in place and the light recycling collar in place at a given current and whatever voltage you have as an input? And secondly that without this recycler at the same given source voltage and current draw from the batteries or power source the real out the front lumens value would be approximately 50%? And in no way does the current draw go up when you use the light recycler but the lumens doubles out the front? Do I have that right?


----------



## John_Galt (Apr 13, 2010)

thezug said:


> It appears there is some confusion as to the performance and capabilities of our technology. Maybe I can clear things up a bit.
> 
> The light recycling retro-reflector redirects light back to the phosphor of the white LED. Some light is re-emitted to the aperture, some to the reflector again and some is absorbed. The result is more light through the aperture and a warmer color temperature.
> 
> ...




I fail to see how your light recycler accomplishes a task more effectively than a TIROS, or how it decreases the color temperature of the light emitted. It seems as though a TIROs would also be more efficient than your light recycler design, as it would surround the LED "dome(as it were)", gathering most of the light emitted, and concentrating it...


----------



## tolkaze (Apr 13, 2010)

WadeF said:


> I'm pretty lost with all of this, but is this what they are possibly claiming to be doing? With an aspheric set up you are basically projecting an image of the emitter, so the brighter the emitter is, the brighter it will be projected, giving a higher lux value, more throw, etc. Now, if they are able to take some of the light and reflect it back onto the LED emitter, would they be able to increase the surface brightness of the emitter, and as a result the projected image of the emitter would be brighter?




Reflecting light onto any non-black surface will re-radiate light, so yes... you could increase the light this way to some extent, but I don't think that you would be doubling it. This principle is sort of trying to cancel out some of the light emitted sideways from the LED dome, and put it back in the middle. This isn't doubling the light, it is replacing some of the lost light in an inefficient manner. I assume they will then use some kind of aspheric to project the image of the die. My question is this, instead of trying to overcome the lost light from the plastic LED dome... simply removing the dome all together would mean more light going forward, and less going sideways in the first place. 

The dome is just an optic and protector, this allows the use of a reflector to focus the light. I would simply remove the dome, or at least alter it with a cylinder (flat on top) to let more light out the front and less out the side, then use an optic or aspheric.

BTW, LED's seem to work fine with no domes, and people have already indicated their thoughts on whether or not LUX is increased. As for Lumens, personally I think lumens decrease a bit with a removed dome, but thats just a matter of opinion.


----------



## alpg88 (Apr 13, 2010)

as old 1.99 beeper commercials said, we could tell you how we do it, but do you really care?
I'd like to see the light using this tech. tested head to head with other high power lights, and see how it behaves.


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 13, 2010)

thezug said:


> The output (lumens) of a system such as this narrow beam flashlight is increased by light recycling. *If we compare the output of this flashlight with and without the reflector, it's about double.* It could be more with a different LED and/or lens but the important thing is, the reflector increases output.



What is your measurement method? Are you measuring maximum Lux at a specific distance or overall lumen output in a sphere?

The measurement method needs to be understood here before any intelligible discussion can be of any value.... lets talk apples-apples and oranges-oranges.

**EDIT** if you are measuring lux at a specific distance... ANY LED will more than double its lux value, wide open emitter versus emitter with reflector/aspheric lens.


----------



## saabluster (Apr 14, 2010)

thezug said:


> It appears there is some confusion as to the performance and capabilities of our technology. Maybe I can clear things up a bit.
> 
> The light recycling retro-reflector redirects light back to the phosphor of the white LED. Some light is re-emitted to the aperture, some to the reflector again and some is absorbed. The result is more light through the aperture and a warmer color temperature.
> 
> ...


Been watching this thread and laughing. That was a rather botched introduction. FYI my light, the DEFT, is the current king of LED throw and has been so for a long time now. I don't think your proto light can beat mine. You have had your fair share of skeptics here and for good reason. I won't go into all those right now but I will say I think your product may have merit. I don't for one second believe your numbers but I think it may help some. Anything we can do to increase surface brightness is good in my book since that is one of the cornerstones to throw. I am skeptical but willing to see if your technology has merit. I will give you a call tomorrow about getting a sample.


----------



## bullettproof (Apr 14, 2010)

saabluster said:


> Been watching this thread and laughing. That was a rather botched introduction. FYI my light, the DEFT, is the current king of LED throw and has been so for a long time now. I don't think your proto light can beat mine. You have had your fair share of skeptics here and for good reason. I won't go into all those right now but I will say I think your product may have merit. I don't for one second believe your numbers but I think it may help some. Anything we can do to increase surface brightness is good in my book since that is one of the cornerstones to throw. I am skeptical but willing to see if your technology has merit. I will give you a call tomorrow about getting a sample.




About time you got in here


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 14, 2010)




----------



## Popsiclestix (Apr 14, 2010)

thezug said:


> It appears there is some confusion as to the performance and capabilities of our technology. Maybe I can clear things up a bit.
> 
> The light recycling retro-reflector redirects light back to the phosphor of the white LED. Some light is re-emitted to the aperture, some to the reflector again and some is absorbed. The result is more light through the aperture and a warmer color temperature.
> 
> ...



So what you're really doing is taking light that is emitted out to the sides of the LED and redirecting it back into the center. Then, some of this redirected light is absorbed by the phosphor and reemitted. This sounds like you're doing nothing but trading the side-emitting lumens for more surface brightness. 

One can easily see that this arrangement will not yield more lumens. 

Assume 100 lumens are emitted to the side and reflected. If one gives yellow phospher a generous 50% efficiency, only 50 are emitted. Thus, you have lost 100 lumens and gained 50 lumens.

But you are right, it seems that the surface brightness may be higher than our current king, the XR-E R2. Whether or not one can package that into a light and collimate it with an aspheric lens to beat the R2 remains to be seen


----------



## thezug (Apr 14, 2010)

John_Galt said:


> I fail to see how your light recycler accomplishes a task more effectively than a TIROS, or how it decreases the color temperature of the light emitted. It seems as though a TIROs would also be more efficient than your light recycler design, as it would surround the LED "dome(as it were)", gathering most of the light emitted, and concentrating it...



I haven't compared it with a TIROS. That might be a good idea. 

As for the color temp, the phosphor is the key. Any high frequency light reflected back onto the phosphor re-emits at a lower frequency on average. We have a striking demo of this phenomenon that we will bring to Infocomm 2010.


----------



## thezug (Apr 14, 2010)

kramer5150 said:


> What is your measurement method? Are you measuring maximum Lux at a specific distance or overall lumen output in a sphere?
> 
> The measurement method needs to be understood here before any intelligible discussion can be of any value.... lets talk apples-apples and oranges-oranges.
> 
> **EDIT** if you are measuring lux at a specific distance... ANY LED will more than double its lux value, wide open emitter versus emitter with reflector/aspheric lens.



When we measure total output, we use an integrating sphere. But my claim was that if I added the reflector to the flashlight, all other things being equal, I will roughly double the output (in lumens if you like) of that flashlight. We typically use an integrating sphere for this measurement too but a LUX meter gives us the same results. 

The setup for comparing the output with the LUX meter requires us to keep the distance equal and measure in the same location.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the wide open emitter versus emitter with reflector/aspheric lens.


----------



## thezug (Apr 14, 2010)

Popsiclestix said:


> So what you're really doing is taking light that is emitted out to the sides of the LED and redirecting it back into the center. Then, some of this redirected light is absorbed by the phosphor and reemitted. This sounds like you're doing nothing but trading the side-emitting lumens for more surface brightness.
> 
> One can easily see that this arrangement will not yield more lumens.
> 
> ...



That's the tradeoff. Side-emitting photons are lost in a system consisting of an LED followed by a lens (or any other limiting aperture). We are putting a fair percentage of that energy back in play.

As for yielding more lumens, it depends on what you mean. Over the entire hemisphere, or through the aperture.


----------



## MrGman (Apr 14, 2010)

thezug said:


> I haven't compared it with a TIROS. That might be a good idea.
> 
> As for the color temp, the phosphor is the key. Any high frequency light reflected back onto the phosphor re-emits at a lower frequency on average. We have a striking demo of this phenomenon that we will bring to Infocomm 2010.


 
so you are saying that the "white" light that is being reflected back into the phosphor is exciting it some more to emit more white light which turns out to be at lower frequencies (more towards the red and away from the blue). Thus the phosphor is giving off more light from double excitation (the blue LED source underneath and the "white" light being recycled on top) and thus the total light spectrum coming out of the central area is a broader spectrum of white light, higher in intensity and thus increasing both lumens readings at a sphere input or lux readings on a meter?

And you are saying you can still overdrive the LED with higher than rated current by some percentage and yet the phosphor isn't totally saturated already and you can still get more light out with the recycler than with a reflector type system just from what makes it through the aperture and not burn the phosphor or ruin the die?


----------



## thezug (Apr 14, 2010)

saabluster said:


> Been watching this thread and laughing. That was a rather botched introduction. FYI my light, the DEFT, is the current king of LED throw and has been so for a long time now. I don't think your proto light can beat mine. You have had your fair share of skeptics here and for good reason. I won't go into all those right now but I will say I think your product may have merit. I don't for one second believe your numbers but I think it may help some. Anything we can do to increase surface brightness is good in my book since that is one of the cornerstones to throw. I am skeptical but willing to see if your technology has merit. I will give you a call tomorrow about getting a sample.



I am impressed with the DEFT however, I remain unconvinced that a redesign which makes use of our recycling retro-reflector would not outperform your current design. 

Our prototype "as is" might not be a fair comparison to the DEFT. It was conceived as a practical way to demonstrate the technology. If you plan to attend Infocomm 2010, please drop by and check it out.


----------



## thezug (Apr 14, 2010)

MrGman said:


> so you are saying that the "white" light that is being reflected back into the phosphor is exciting it some more to emit more white light which turns out to be at lower frequencies (more towards the red and away from the blue). Thus the phosphor is giving off more light from double excitation (the blue LED source underneath and the "white" light being recycled on top) and thus the total light spectrum coming out of the central area is a broader spectrum of white light, higher in intensity and thus increasing both lumens readings at a sphere input or lux readings on a meter?
> 
> And you are saying you can still overdrive the LED with higher than rated current by some percentage and yet the phosphor isn't totally saturated already and you can still get more light out with the recycler than with a reflector type system just from what makes it through the aperture and not burn the phosphor or ruin the die?



The spectrum from the bare LED is that classic blue LED luminescence spike followed by a phosphorescence curve that maxes out in 550nm region. The spectrum from an LED with the retro-reflector has a similar shape but the peak of the blue spike is closer in amplitude to the peak phosphor.

Higher lumen readings through the aperture. The idea is to match the aperture of the retro-reflector to the aperture of the collimating lens. The higher the f/#, the greater the benifit from recycling.

We have never had a phosphor burn out from recycling. Just from experience, I can tell you that recycling has no ill effect on the phosphor. If you overdrive an LED to failure with recycling, it would have failed without. Over-driving is kind of a separate issue.


----------



## saabluster (Apr 14, 2010)

thezug said:


> When we measure total output, we use an integrating sphere. But my claim was that if I added the reflector to the flashlight, all other things being equal, I will roughly double the output (in lumens if you like) of that flashlight. We typically use an integrating sphere for this measurement too but a LUX meter gives us the same results.
> 
> The setup for comparing the output with the LUX meter requires us to keep the distance equal and measure in the same location.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the wide open emitter versus emitter with reflector/aspheric lens.


Part of the problem in you getting you point across has been a lack of proper explanation or the use of the right terms. To say your device doubles the output is very misleading. It would be better to say you are increasing the throughput or increasing surface brightness. These terms will be better understood here.


----------



## saabluster (Apr 14, 2010)

thezug said:


> We have never had a phosphor burn out from recycling. Just from experience, I can tell you that recycling has no ill effect on the phosphor. If you overdrive an LED to failure with recycling, it would have failed without. Over-driving is kind of a separate issue.


I am very experienced with overdriving LEDs. Your technology will stress the phosphor more than if it was not there. That is unless you would like to claim zero absorption of the reflected light into the phosphor. We both know that is not possible. Some of that light will die as heat in the phosphor. This therefore means more thermal stress on the phosphor. That said if your device works it would not be necessary to overdrive as much to get the same results so the same end-result could be achieved at greater efficiency.


----------



## saabluster (Apr 14, 2010)

BTW I talked to Harry and I am still waiting on the form to fill out. I am very curious to see if this technology works. If it does it will help in an area that has been all but abandoned by LED companies. Namely surface brightness. This is very important for projectors and flashlights.


----------



## Patriot (Apr 14, 2010)

saabluster said:


> Part of the problem in you getting you point across has been a lack of proper explanation or the use of the right terms.



Yes exactly, and after all of this communication time & energy is spent, my guess is that we'll all eventually come to the grounded understanding that lumens aren't being increased, multiplied, or amplified here. I still think the OP and optics guys are referring to increased lux at a distance or what we used to generically refer to as "candlepower." 

If lumen increase were possible by this technique it would be perpetual in that you could keep "recycling" the light and attain a mean increase each time it was recycled. It also raises the question of why so many LED manufacturers failed to ever stumble up this phenomenon given the billions of dollars and millions of man hours already invested into LED technology. Certainly if it was possible to double the lumen output of an emitter by redirecting some light back into the die, it would have been explored by these competing manufacturers. In this industry an output gain of 10% with no increase in current is considered a big leap. Remember here that the claim is double and that's not just lux but *overall lumens*. 

If they're using an I-sphere that's really indicating double the lumen output, it sounds to me as if it's not baffled properly. Is this even possible in a certified, commercial I-sphere? I don't know but Gman probably would.


----------



## ma_sha1 (Apr 14, 2010)

Very Interesting Concept, by collecting lights to the side back to LED & 
re-emit out the front using a reverse reflector called "Recycling Collar".

A few things that I'd like to point out.

1, It will not increase total lumen out put of the LED, lumen is a type of energy measured via the form of light. One can convert energy, but one can not generate energy out of nothing.

The lumens from bounced back beam & regenerated into new light will be less than the original lumens blocked by the "Recycling Collar".

the measured lux out via the hole in the center of the "Recycling Collar" might increase, but the total lumen output of LED is reduced. 

Therefore, it is really a collimation system, although an innovative one. 

2, OP need to demonstrate efficiency of the recycling by quantitative data.
White LED use yellow die for a reason. The yellow phosphor absorbs blue light (Excitation wave length is blue) & re-emit white light. When the light being bounced back, it's white light, only a portion of the spectrum is able to excite the yellow phosphor again. The efficiency might be less than anticipated vs. if all the light bounced back is blue light. 

3, The "saturation effect", a hard driven LED might have a "saturation effect" where the majority yellow phosphor have been fully excited. 
Therefore, the ability to get more light emitted by increasing excitation density is greatly reduced. This is especially true with over driven LED, takes a lot more additional "driving" to get a lot less additional light out at near saturation level. 

The "saturation effect" is everywhere, it's basically a point where 1+1 no longer equals 2. For example, if one guys "tool" is 7 inches long when fully excited by one women, you add another women, it won't grow into 14 inchs, 7.5 inches maybe. The ability to grow has been met with "saturation effect".

4, The surface brightness might increase a little, but because it's really a collimation technology after all, you lose the light that could have been sent forward to begin with (Those that are blocked by the collar), 
there fore this is a trade off. It remains to be seen if it will actually be able to beat out existing collimation systems available.

I would not expect this to be a huge improvement over simple Aspherical.
If used in conjunction with Aspherical, the trade off is that it'll force you 
to use smaller lens.


----------



## thezug (Apr 14, 2010)

saabluster said:


> Part of the problem in you getting you point across has been a lack of proper explanation or the use of the right terms. To say your device doubles the output is very misleading. It would be better to say you are increasing the throughput or increasing surface brightness. These terms will be better understood here.



Fair enough. Throughput is what I mean. I don't want to mislead. We are using an integrating sphere to measure total lumens through the flashlight lens. With this flashlight, using this lens, the reading we get with the retro-reflector in place is almost double the reading we get without it. But just to be clear, the LED is not emitting more photons. We are just getting more through the aperture.


----------



## thezug (Apr 14, 2010)

Patriot said:


> Yes exactly, and after all of this communication time & energy is spent, my guess is that we'll all eventually come to the grounded understanding that lumens aren't being increased, multiplied, or amplified here. I still think the OP and optics guys are referring to increased lux at a distance or what we used to generically refer to as "candlepower."
> 
> If lumen increase were possible by this technique it would be perpetual in that you could keep "recycling" the light and attain a mean increase each time it was recycled. It also raises the question of why so many LED manufacturers failed to ever stumble up this phenomenon given the billions of dollars and millions of man hours already invested into LED technology. Certainly if it was possible to double the lumen output of an emitter by redirecting some light back into the die, it would have been explored by these competing manufacturers. In this industry an output gain of 10% with no increase in current is considered a big leap. Remember here that the claim is double and that's not just lux but *overall lumens*.
> 
> If they're using an I-sphere that's really indicating double the lumen output, it sounds to me as if it's not baffled properly. Is this even possible in a certified, commercial I-sphere? I don't know but Gman probably would.




I don't know any other way to claim double the LUX at the same distance over the same area without claiming double the lumens. The flashlight makes a square image on the wall. The size of that image is not changing when we add the retro-reflector. The image just gets brighter (more lum/m^2).

Ok maybe if I claimed that the LED is emitting more light over the entire hemisphere rather than just through the aperture of the collimating lens. Which I am not.


----------



## thezug (Apr 14, 2010)

ma_sha1 said:


> Very Interesting Concept, by collecting lights to the side back to LED &
> re-emit out the front using a reverse reflector called "Recycling Collar".
> 
> A few things that I'd like to point out.
> ...



1. Yup. More throughput. More flux through that aperture. In the case of the flashlight, this is matched to the aperture of the lens. Any smaller and the light lost by blocking the lens is more than the gain by recycling. Any bigger, and light is thrown away. Maybe I should have mentioned that this retro-reflector is sized to fit.

2. Yeah, the alignment of the retro to the LED is a little sensitive. But it's not too difficult. 

3. Our results are what they are. Saturation effect notwithstanding. As I said earlier, my experiments have yet to damage any phosphors. Given what *saabluster* has said, I suppose I can chalk it up to proper heat sinking. I'll investigate further.

4. Yup. As with anything else, there are trade-offs. We believe the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.


----------



## bullettproof (Apr 14, 2010)

*[Inappropriate post deleted - DM51]*


----------



## saabluster (Apr 14, 2010)

thezug said:


> 3. Our results are what they are. Saturation effect notwithstanding. As I said earlier, my experiments have yet to damage any phosphors. Given what *saabluster* has said, I suppose I can chalk it up to proper heat sinking. I'll investigate further.


I should say that the effects I am talking about would be measured more in the tens of thousands of hours. There is a reason the LED manufactures step down the maximum rated current for the same die and package when the LED is a warm or high CRI LED. More energy is lost with this setup and is converted to heat. So naturally you cannot have the LED run at the same max spec and expect the same lifetimes. Your technology is in essence doing the same thing- dissipating more energy into that phosphor layer. So to keep the same unit lifetime current needs to be reduced. This is really only an issue when trying to push the envelope but when advising your customers it may be advisable to mention that depending on the design some current reduction may be needed to retain the full LED life. I am also curious on whether the LED manufacturers would honor any warranty with this device in place. Just a thought.


----------



## ma_sha1 (Apr 14, 2010)

thezug said:


> 1. Yup. More throughput. More flux through that aperture. In the case of the flashlight, this is matched to the aperture of the lens. Any smaller and the light lost by blocking the lens is more than the gain by recycling. Any bigger, and light is thrown away. Maybe I should have mentioned that this retro-reflector is sized to fit.
> 
> 2. Yeah, the alignment of the retro to the LED is a little sensitive. But it's not too difficult.
> 
> ...



Most people on CPF refers to "more light out in the center" as more "throw", that might be part of the initial confusions. 

In a way, I think your design is similar in principle to this light I made:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/250379

I used a Lens in the middle, a reflector on the side to send the light
forward. Creating two hot spots & superimpose them together.
The combo roughly doubled the hot spot intensity. 

Where you used a reflector "in reverse" to send the side beam back for light regeneration. You'll have the "reflector loss" similar as in my design, but you will have additional loss during the "regeneration process",
I would imagine my design is more efficient. 

Either method will have the compromise resulting smaller lens must be used.
I do like the Combo action of Lens + Reflector which gives a 
large & round hot spot, about 2x brighter than reflector alone. 

However, the "throw" of the combo design will be less than a flashlight with a big Aspherical lens alone that covers the whole bezel. However, I do believe the combo design is practically useful, as the Aspherical lens alone produces a square 
beam with limited practical use.


----------



## thezug (Apr 14, 2010)

saabluster said:


> I should say that the effects I am talking about would be measured more in the tens of thousands of hours. There is a reason the LED manufactures step down the maximum rated current for the same die and package when the LED is a warm or high CRI LED. More energy is lost with this setup and is converted to heat. So naturally you cannot have the LED run at the same max spec and expect the same lifetimes. Your technology is in essence doing the same thing- dissipating more energy into that phosphor layer. So to keep the same unit lifetime current needs to be reduced. This is really only an issue when trying to push the envelope but when advising your customers it may be advisable to mention that depending on the design some current reduction may be needed to retain the full LED life. I am also curious on whether the LED manufacturers would honor any warranty with this device in place. Just a thought.



The theory is sound but would of course, require some sort of life-test. It is definitely something to think about. Thanks for your input.


----------



## thezug (Apr 14, 2010)

ma_sha1 said:


> Most people on CPF refers to "more light out in the center" as more "throw", that might be part of the initial confusions.
> 
> In a way, I think your design is similar in principle to this light I made:
> 
> ...



That is a clever design.

Thanks for the info.


----------



## Patriot (Apr 14, 2010)

thezug said:


> Fair enough. Throughput is what I mean. I don't want to mislead. We are using an integrating sphere to measure total lumens through the flashlight lens. With this flashlight, using this lens, the reading we get with the retro-reflector in place is almost double the reading we get without it. But just to be clear, the LED is not emitting more photons. We are just getting more through the aperture.





> thezug
> 1. Yup. More throughput. More flux through that aperture. In the case of the flashlight, this is matched to the aperture of the lens. Any smaller and the light lost by blocking the lens is more than the gain by recycling. Any bigger, and light is thrown away. Maybe I should have mentioned that this retro-reflector is sized to fit.





> thezug
> I don't know any other way to claim double the LUX at the same distance over the same area without claiming double the lumens. The flashlight makes a square image on the wall. The size of that image is not changing when we add the retro-reflector. The image just gets brighter (more lum/m^2).
> 
> Ok maybe if I claimed that the LED is emitting more light over the entire hemisphere rather than just through the aperture of the collimating lens. Which I am not.




Now we're getting somewhere. You're converting so-called wasted, or spill light into throw, not increasing emitter lumens. This is a similar result to using an aspherical lens in that the overall light output is reduced, but throw is greatly increased.

If you were to take you prototype, remove the "recycler" so that you'd essentially have a bare emitter protruding through the IS aperture, you'd find that the overal lumen output would be greater that with the recycler assembly installed. Yes, you're increasing throw but at the detriment of overall output. This is a planned compromise which is fine as long as that's the direction that you intend to go. If you want to fill a room with light, this would be the wrong choice. If you want to project a focused beam downrange, this could be another example of the right choice, depending on it's efficiency compared to an aspheric.


----------



## saabluster (Apr 15, 2010)

Patriot said:


> This is a similar result to using an aspherical lens in that the overall light output is reduced, but throw is greatly increased.
> 
> .... compared to an aspheric.



It seems you may have misunderstood what they are doing. This is not a replacement for an aspheric but an aid for a light that uses an aspheric. It is similar to the two lens design of my light where you gather up light that would have been wasted and send it out the light. Their setup is potentially better in that it will increase surface brightness and therefore throw. I think they know they are not increasing the output of the LED itself it's just they did not communicate this very well. 

Their system has to be tuned just like mine. With mine too much pre-collimization results in a larger but less intense final beam. The aperture of theirs has to gather as much light as it can that is otherwise wasted light. I the aperture is too small it will block the view of the emitter from the lens perspective. Yes that light will be reflected back to the die but it is then subject to losses. So with theirs bad tuning means a loss of throughput. Bad tuning on mine may or may not depending on which way it is out-of-tune. I can't wait to see if the technology works. We could have a light half the size of the current DEFT and throw just as far. Here's hoping they are right on their figures.


----------



## MrBenchmark (Apr 15, 2010)

Another interesting property of their technology is the recycling aspect. People seem to have kind of run off the tracks thinking only of reflection of the recaptured light. But actually the biggest effect is going to be the absorption of the stray photons by the LED's phosphor, and then the re-emitted at a lower wavelength. 

I'd think this would be most pronounced with the photons that were already at the blue end of the spectrum, so you'd cut out some of the bluish light that is otherwise produced, and also output additional lower frequency photons. Just less of them and at lower energy than what was originally output from the LED - but those photons were considered "wasted" anyway, so from the Wavien guy's perspective, it's free beer.

Anyway, we mostly like warm tints, right? So LEDs with this system should have quite a bit more red in their spectrum (well, at least lower frequencies than blue!) and likely look a lot more natural.

I think their application is mostly things like spotlights and projectors, so an extremely narrow and intense beam ought to be fine, right?

The principle benefit, though, is that this increases the surface brightness of the LED itself, effectively increasing its throw and perceived brightness, and depending on how you want to measure this, the efficiency of the LED. (Again, the whole system is less efficient overall - but from the perspective of their application, the part you made less efficient was almost pure waste anyway.)

This seems like a really cool idea, at least for the intended application. I'm not sure I'd want to try to walk through the woods with such a light - it would have like no spill I'd think - but I bet it makes for an absolutely awesome searchlight!


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 15, 2010)

:thumbsup: interesting thread... thanks OP!! and everyone for their contributions.


----------



## headophile (Apr 15, 2010)

saabluster said:


> It seems you may have misunderstood what they are doing. This is not a replacement for an aspheric but an aid for a light that uses an aspheric. It is similar to the two lens design of my light where you gather up light that would have been wasted and send it out the light. Their setup is potentially better in that it will increase surface brightness and therefore throw. I think they know they are not increasing the output of the LED itself it's just they did not communicate this very well.
> 
> Their system has to be tuned just like mine. With mine too much pre-collimization results in a larger but less intense final beam. The aperture of theirs has to gather as much light as it can that is otherwise wasted light. I the aperture is too small it will block the view of the emitter from the lens perspective. Yes that light will be reflected back to the die but it is then subject to losses. So with theirs bad tuning means a loss of throughput. Bad tuning on mine may or may not depending on which way it is out-of-tune.* I can't wait to see if the technology works. We could have a light half the size of the current DEFT and throw just as far*. Here's hoping they are right on their figures.



if that indeed will be the case, i'm definitely going to get my hands on such a light!


----------



## John_Galt (Apr 15, 2010)

Finally some explanations that make some sense! Thank you for clarifying TheZug!


----------



## thezug (Apr 15, 2010)

John_Galt said:


> Finally some explanations that make some sense! Thank you for clarifying TheZug!



No problem. Sorry for all the initial confusion and misuse of proper terminology. Though I gotta admit some of the explanations that followed mine were very good too. Thanks to *saabluster*, *MrBenchmark*, *Patriot*, et. al.


----------



## DM51 (Apr 15, 2010)

An interesting thread that started out poorly with a very thin prospectus, and was reassuringly subjected to rigorous analysis and questioning by other members. It is good to see knowledgeable members subjecting new claims to such scrutiny.

Welcome to CPF, enginyr & thezug - I've been away for a while, otherwise I would probably have posted earlier, to advise you about our Advertising Policies, although as far as I can see you have not yet contravened them. 

If and when you have a product to market, you will need to post about it in the appropriate forum; in the meantime, the discussion here may continue.


----------



## saabluster (Apr 15, 2010)

thezug said:


> I am impressed with the DEFT however, I remain unconvinced that a redesign which makes use of our recycling retro-reflector would not outperform your current design.
> 
> Our prototype "as is" might not be a fair comparison to the DEFT. It was conceived as a practical way to demonstrate the technology. If you plan to attend Infocomm 2010, please drop by and check it out.


In going back through this thread I noticed I completely missed this post. I agree that a redesign with the reflector added may just improve the DEFT. Proof is in the pudding as they say.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 7, 2010)

OK so I finally received my evaluation sample at the cost of $100. I am happy to report that it works quite well. I measure the surface brightness increase at 58%. It also changes from a cool white to neutral white when the collar is on. Although not quite the "doubling" mentioned by the OP a 58% increase is still a phenomenal achievement. I give this a big thumbs up.:thumbsup:


----------



## Monolith (Jun 7, 2010)

I couldn't get the sample ordering page to work on any browser. Did you just call them up and order?


----------



## enginyr (Jun 7, 2010)

I'm think you could retrofit our collar on your flash light, saabluster


----------



## thebeans (Jun 7, 2010)

saabluster said:


> OK so I finally received my evaluation sample at the cost of $100. I am happy to report that it works quite well. I measure the surface brightness increase at 58%. It also changes from a cool white to neutral white when the collar is on. Although not quite the "doubling" mentioned by the OP a 58% increase is still a phenomenal achievement. I give this a big thumbs up.:thumbsup:


 
Wow!! Pretty amazing. So it wasn't all BS after all. Good to know and thanks for reporting your findings!


----------



## saabluster (Jun 7, 2010)

enginyr said:


> I'm think you could retrofit our collar on your flash light, saabluster


I should say I think the figures for my sample could have been slightly higher but there are fingerprints all over the reflector. 

As far as working as well with domed LEDs we shall see. I have my doubts it will work quite as well with the domed LEDs where the apparent die placement moves depending on the angle of viewing. Maybe a reflector with the profile tweaked to account for this would work though. Secondly I see this being far more difficult to tune with smaller die LEDs. I will only know with more testing though. Thanks for bringing this technology to our attention.


----------



## psychbeat (Jun 7, 2010)

KOOL STUFF!!

its be neat to see this implemented in the future 
for sure!


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jun 7, 2010)

Saabluster, I think perhaps you should focus (forgive me my pun) on using the XP series. XR already tightens the beam some, and would not make full use of the reflecting collar unless it were inside the metal "Cree Ring." 

I must say, I'm surprised that it took 3 pages for people to understand what the OP was talking about. At least we got over that language barrier


----------



## JB (Jun 8, 2010)

saabluster said:


> OK so I finally received my evaluation sample at the cost of $100. I am happy to report that it works quite well. I measure the surface brightness increase at 58%. It also changes from a cool white to neutral white when the collar is on. Although not quite the "doubling" mentioned by the OP a 58% increase is still a phenomenal achievement. I give this a big thumbs up.:thumbsup:



Excellent news. Any pictures to show?


----------



## get-lit (Jun 8, 2010)

Although you're getting 58% more surface brightness, that doesn't hold a candle to the ability of a standard reflector or lens to collimate the light to a distant target. Yes you've now gained 58% more source intensity, but you've done so by utilizing the light that could have been directed directly toward the target through collimation. A collimated light with a source intensity of 1x would kill a non-collimated light with a virtual source intensity of 1.58x any day. It's an interesting concept, but I'm absolutely confident that standard reflector and lens collimation methods will prove to outperform it.

Also, regarding the DPR technology; although it is able to capture and collimate that additional light which is emitted forward from the source, the technology has a distinct disadvantage to already adopted methods of collimating that additional light. For instance, the Epson E-Torl lamps do the same, but without having to create a secondary virtual source. Physics can not be cheated - it is impossible to create a virtual mirror of the primary source that is more concentrated than that primary source; in fact it's even impossible to perfectly duplicate it. Virtual sources of that primary source will be less concentrated due to imperfect reflection angles and also due to reflection losses, and the E-Torl lamps already capture that additional light in a simpler method without a secondary virtual source. That method has been used in high power search lights for decades before Epson adopted it for projectors.

edit- on the other hand, if the E-Torl lamps are elliptical, then they also create a virtual source. In that case, the DPR method may have a slight advantage in that it may utilize a bit more of the light than the E-Torl, due to the fact that the convex mirror of the E-Torl blocks some of the light that is emitted from the back side of the light source from being collimated.


----------



## Th232 (Jun 8, 2010)

get-lit said:


> Although you're getting 58% more surface brightness, that doesn't hold a candle to the ability of a standard reflector or lens to collimate the light to a distant target. Yes you've now gained 58% more source intensity, but you've done so by utilizing the light that could have been directed directly toward the target through collimation. A collimated light with a source intensity of 1x would kill a non-collimated light with a virtual source intensity of 1.58x any day. It's an interesting concept, but I'm absolutely confident that standard reflector and lens collimation methods will prove to outperform it.



I think the point is that you can use additional methods of collimation, e.g. lenses on top of the collar.


----------



## get-lit (Jun 8, 2010)

Th232 said:


> I think the point is that you can use additional methods of collimation, e.g. lenses on top of the collar.


 
In their method, the light that would benefit from collimation to the target is instead already utilized to boost the source intensity. The trade off will not be beneficial over direct collimation toward the target. It's like running on a treadmil with a generator to produce energy to get somewhere, when you could have just run there to begin with. We can kick around that light all we want, but it's not going to be more efficient than directing it straight toward the target from the get go. I wish I saw it differently because it would be a fun new avenue for sure.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 8, 2010)

get-lit said:


> Although you're getting 58% more surface brightness, that doesn't hold a candle to the ability of a standard reflector or lens to collimate the light to a distant target. Yes you've now gained 58% more source intensity, but you've done so by utilizing the light that could have been directed directly toward the target through collimation. A collimated light with a source intensity of 1x would kill a non-collimated light with a virtual source intensity of 1.58x any day. It's an interesting concept, but I'm absolutely confident that standard reflector and lens collimation methods will prove to outperform it.


This is not a technology intended for use with a standard reflector. A reflector as is doesn't hold a candle to the ability of a lens to collimate the light to a distant target. With their "light collar" in place this means the aspheric light can throw 58% more than before when it was trouncing the reflector. You seem to have your facts mixed up or just don't understand what's going on here.
Even if you are referring to pure collimization such as is used in the DEFT where I capture some of the light emitted to the sides I can assure you this light collar does more to increase throw. It has to be designed to match the lens it is being used with however.


----------



## TorchBoy (Jun 8, 2010)

I cannot believe how badly this thread started and how (understandably) slow people were to realise what the two advertisers were badly trying to explain.


----------



## DM51 (Jun 8, 2010)

enginyr... please read Rule 3.


----------



## kito109654 (Jun 8, 2010)

WadeF said:


> I'm pretty lost with all of this, but is this what they are possibly claiming to be doing? With an aspheric set up you are basically projecting an image of the emitter, so the brighter the emitter is, the brighter it will be projected, giving a higher lux value, more throw, etc. Now, if they are able to take some of the light and reflect it back onto the LED emitter, would they be able to increase the surface brightness of the emitter, and as a result the projected image of the emitter would be brighter?


Oh wow, all this convoluted junk and poor word choice and you just made it all make sense. That "clicked" immediately. Two thumbs up for you! 



thezug said:


> Fair enough. Throughput is what I mean. I don't want to mislead. We are using an integrating sphere to measure total lumens through the flashlight lens. With this flashlight, using this lens, the reading we get with the retro-reflector in place is almost double the reading we get without it. But just to be clear, the LED is not emitting more photons. We are just getting more through the aperture.


This is much better than what you were saying before. This makes sense. Before, with the poor word choice, you were claiming that the total lumen output somehow increased (from a bare emitter to a collimated one). A before and after of the light output through the lens designed for your reflector makes sense because the lens obviously wouldn't be very efficient without the reflector/recycler. 



saabluster said:


> OK so I finally received my evaluation sample at the cost of $100. I am happy to report that it works quite well. I measure the surface brightness increase at 58%. It also changes from a cool white to neutral white when the collar is on. Although not quite the "doubling" mentioned by the OP a 58% increase is still a phenomenal achievement. I give this a big thumbs up.:thumbsup:


You get to keep it, I hope? That is truly amazing! 58% is great, no one was expecting doubling. *My favorite part is how the light temerature (CCT) is lowered by sending some of the ugly blue light back through the phosphor! *That is genius and very, very useful! I don't really care much for the handheld flashlight application (I have no practical use for such a light) but both your DEFT and this combined is an amazing jump in technology for the practical use of an LED spotlight. I picture this thing being used from a search and rescue helicoptor or something similar. Unless I'm not understanding it correctly, wouldn't this keep the cost (and size) of a larger version down by removing the necessity for a huge expensive lens? Speaking of a larger helicopter mounted version (obviously not bound by batteries), imagine several (say, 7) of these units be combined and aimed such that the beams overlapped slightly, making a larger, more useful spotlight. Or they could be dynamically controllable (re-aimable, if you will) to all point in the same spot for even more throw potential. Wow.


----------



## Chauncey Gardner (Jun 8, 2010)

bullettproof said:


> *[Inappropriate post deleted - DM51]*


 

What is wrong with you?

Did you confuse the forum you were on?


----------



## Th232 (Jun 8, 2010)

get-lit said:


> In their method, the light that would benefit from collimation to the target is instead already utilized to boost the source intensity. The trade off will not be beneficial over direct collimation toward the target. It's like running on a treadmil with a generator to produce energy to get somewhere, when you could have just run there to begin with. We can kick around that light all we want, but it's not going to be more efficient than directing it straight toward the target from the get go. I wish I saw it differently because it would be a fun new avenue for sure.



I would disagree with that. First of all, note that with any collimation method, reflector, TIR or lens, the light won't go "straight" at the target as you say, it'll go slightly off to one side, more so for a reflector than with a lens, hence why when someone wants extreme throw with an LED at a certain size, they go for an aspheric and not a reflector. Have a look through the datasheets that various manufacturers put out, then compare with the figures for aspherics that people here have gained from experimental data. Perfect collimation of all light gathered (whether from a reflector or an aspheric) can only come from a point source. Failing that, Aspheric > TIR > reflector, even when the latter two are optimised for throw.

So let's take an LED with an aspheric. The aspheric captures all light emitted up to, say, +/- 30 deg off axis. Assume we have 300 lumens coming out of the LED, 150 hit the aspheric, while the other 150 miss it and are completely wasted. Assume transmission losses to be 10%, that gives us 135 lumens OTF.

With this collar, it captures some of the wasted 150 lumens and redirects it back at the LED &c. as described earlier, giving the 58% increase in surface brightness. Apart from the obvious decrease in total output due to inefficiencies in the collar, the main tradeoff is that the viewing angle has now been greatly reduced, eyeballing the image on their site, I'd call it from 180 deg down to 60 deg.

If we were using a reflector based system, this would throw a lot worse, but see my previous note about throw and reflectors vs aspherics. Our example aspheric, however, doesn't use any of the light past +/- 30 deg, so we have a gain in overall throw due to the greater surface brightness. Note that if the aspheric only captured light between, say, +/- 20 deg, then there will still be a large amount of light lost, hence Saab's comment about matching the lens.

So with the LED, aspheric and everything else being the same, therefore we get 150 * 1.58 = 237 lumens hitting the aspheric, while only 63 lumens is lost. Taking transmission losses into account, that's 213 lumens OTF.

Short version: Viewing angle down, surface brightness up.

Will OTF lumens be lower when compared to a reflector or TIR (especially the TIR)? Gut feeling is that it will be, but I can't say for sure. But will throw increase? I believe yes for a tuned setup, for the reasoning given above.

Enginyr and thezug, my opinion is probably worth as much as a black reflector, but I'd like to second what bshanahan14rulz said, if you come up with something like this for Cree's XP series, I'd buy one without hesitation.


----------



## DM51 (Jun 8, 2010)

Chauncey Gardner said:


> Did you confuse the forum you were on?


Thanks for drawing my attention to that post - I've deleted it. I can't think how I missed it before.


----------



## get-lit (Jun 8, 2010)

Th232, I thoroughly understand the poor etendue relation of a large emitter source coupled with the small reflectors we're talking about here, and that only an impossible infinite etendue can produce perfect collimation etc. That relation applies to standard reflector and lens collimation methods, as well as the reversed reflector of this new method, so we can compare the relative performance of this method to illuminate a distant target by using the all the same emitters with the same size reflectors and lenses.

All that is happening with this method is that the light is being reflected back to the source to make it brighter. It's inherently less efficient than directing it toward the target to make the target brighter instead. With equivalent sized source and optic reflective components when comparing both methods, the effects of etendue relation can be about eliminated for a fairer comparison. That's why the DEFT is not a fair comparison to the prototype they have available. Keep the etendue relations comparable with the same emitters and the same relative sized optics and then we can really compare apple to apples The reflector diameter in their prototype seems about just over 7 times the average emitter size, so we should be comparing with a DEFT type lens that size on that emitter, and you'll get a lot more than 58% more illuminance upon the target. Throw a collimating lens on the prototype and it should come closer, but it still couldn't quite match a DEFT type lens of equivalent size of the prototype reflector.

When comparing the two methods of target illumination under equivalent etendue, one in which light is typically reflected toward that target, and another in which the light is being reflected back toward the source, the method which reflects light back toward the source is adding two additional loss components; the reflectance of the emitter and an additional minor angular accuracy loss.

I'm still keeping an open mind and my hopes up however. A fair comparison is needed for me to really know if there's some magic to it that I'm not seeing.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 8, 2010)

get-lit said:


> Th232, I thoroughly understand the poor etendue relation of a large emitter source coupled with the small reflectors we're talking about here, and that only an impossible infinite etendue can produce perfect collimation etc. That relation applies to standard reflector and lens collimation methods, as well as the reversed reflector of this new method, so we can compare the relative performance of this method to illuminate a distant target by using the all the same emitters with the same size reflectors and lenses.
> 
> All that is happening with this method is that the light is being reflected back to the source to make it brighter. It's inherently less efficient than directing it toward the target to make the target brighter instead. With equivalent sized source and optic reflective components when comparing both methods, the effects of etendue relation can be about eliminated for a fairer comparison. That's why the DEFT is not a fair comparison to the prototype they have available. Keep the etendue relations comparable with the same emitters and the same relative sized optics and then we can really compare apple to apples The reflector diameter in their prototype seems about just over 7 times the average emitter size, so we should be comparing with a DEFT type lens that size on that emitter, and you'll get a lot more than 58% more illuminance upon the target. Throw a collimating lens on the prototype and it should come closer, but it still couldn't quite match a DEFT type lens of equivalent size of the prototype reflector.
> 
> ...


Your obviously not getting it. This light collar is *not* intended to replace *any* means of collimation. All it is is a hemispherical reflector with the top lopped off to allow some light to escape. You still have to collimate the light that comes out. 

It is true that this light collar reduces the optical efficiency of the system vs a system like the DEFT's but the benefits of the light collar out-way the negatives when the goal is throw. 

I would propose my own design here. Since their design is all but impossible to use with a reflector I thought of a new design for use with a reflector. It would be a hemispherical reflector that hovers over-.top the led but allows the light to escape from the sides where it can hit the reflector. This will give a beam with out the spill but that does have a hotspot and corona. It will not be as intense as a lens but the beam will be broader.


----------



## get-lit (Jun 8, 2010)

saabluster said:


> ..You still have to collimate the light that comes out..


 
Oh I get it all right; what I'm saying is that if you were to instead utilize a lens that is the size of that reflector/collar they are using, it is inherently more efficient at directing the light to the target than a smaller lens on top of that reflector/collar. The utilization of that outer light by directing it at the target is a more efficient method than directing that side light back to the source because when directing that side light back to the source rather than to the target there are at least two additional losses. Pretty simple.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 8, 2010)

get-lit said:


> Oh I get it all right; what I'm saying is that if you were to instead utilize a lens that is the size of that reflector/collar they are using, it is inherently more efficient at directing the light to the target than a smaller lens on top of that reflector/collar. The utilization of that outer light by directing it at the target is a more efficient method than directing that light back to the source because when directing that side light back to the source rather than the target there are at least two additional losses. Pretty simple.


Ok I'm going to repeat myself word for word. 

*It is true that this light collar reduces the optical efficiency of the system vs a system like the DEFT's but the benefits of the light collar out-way the negatives when the goal is throw.

*Lenses alone cannot, let me repeat, *cannot* match the light collar's ability to increase surface brightness and therefore throw.If you want better throw from an aspheric design the collar is far superior. You do understand I am the designer and maker of the DEFT right? I am telling you that their system is superior to mine. 
Let's say we had two lights with the same outer dimensions and with the same diameter main lens. One has a pre-collimator just over the LED to redirect the otherwise wasted light and the other has the collar. 

The one with the collar will have a more intense beam and higher lux readings but a smaller beam size. You are right that there is more loss with the collar and this is reflected(no pun intended) in the fact that the size of the beam is smaller. 

The one with the lens to redirect will indeed have more throughput and a larger beam size but less intensity.

It should also be noted again the huge benefit the collar offers of warming the output of the LED. Everyone loves neutral white LEDs and with this system in place you get an aspheric light with the efficiency of a cool white but the color of a neutral white. That's right neutral white without the efficiency hit!


----------



## kito109654 (Jun 8, 2010)

Get-lit, I'm sure you're already aware of these three points but I'm gonna restate the obvious just in case. 

1. Maximum throw is the goal.
2. Higher surface brightness equals greater throw. 
3. At the expense of overall efficiency, the collor increases surface brightness. 

That's all.


----------



## Th232 (Jun 8, 2010)

saabluster said:


> It should also be noted again the huge benefit the collar offers of warming the output of the LED. Everyone loves neutral white LEDs and with this system in place you get an aspheric light with the efficiency of a cool white but the color of a neutral white. That's right neutral white without the efficiency hit!



Just curious, what do you think the drop in output is if you compare a bare LED to one with the collar? Personally I'd have to say that the collar gives us that efficiency hit, but I obviously haven't played with it yet so I don't know how large that drop is.


----------



## get-lit (Jun 8, 2010)

Surface brightness works in conjunction with optical etendue to produce candlepower and throw:

Relative Candlepower = Relative Intensity x Relative Light Gather x (Relative Optic Focal Length)^2
Relative Throw = sqrt(Relative Intensity) x sqrt(Relative Light Gather) x Relative Optic Focal Length

What is really beginning to ring a bell here for me is that the collar increases luminous intensity while possibly maintaining enough light gather for the trade off to be beneficial to throw just has been suggested; because the same amount of light is gathered through the light paths, albiet with an additional loss due to the reflectance loss of the collar as well as the reflectance loss of the emitter itself. So for example if 50% of the light is captured by the collar and 50% exits the aperture directly, and the collar has a reflectance of 85%, and the emitter has a reflectance of 75%, we retain a total 80% of the light gather:

50% direct aperture light + (50% collar light x (100% - 15% reflectance loss - 25% emitter reflectance loss)) = 80%

or 

.5 direct aperture light + (.5 collar light x (1 - .15 reflectance loss - .25 emitter reflectance loss)) = .8

So when replacing a collimating lens with an equivelent diameter collet and smaller diameter collimating lens of matching focal length, we would then have traded 20% light gather for 58% more luminous intensity, resulting in net gains in relative candlepower and throw:

Relative Candlepower = 1.58 x .8 x (Relative Optic Focal Length)^2
Relative Throw Distance = sqrt(1.58) x sqrt(.8) x Relative Optic Focal Length

We would then have a net 26.4% more candlepower and 12.4% more throw!

If the losses could be minimized, these gains could be much more! What I wasn't realizing before is that the light gather of the extra side light is still for the most part retained with the use of the collar, which is what has been throwing me off all along. This is actually very intriguing now. :twothumbs


----------



## Th232 (Jun 9, 2010)

Yes, you've got it!:twothumbs


----------



## saabluster (Jun 9, 2010)

Th232 said:


> Just curious, what do you think the drop in output is if you compare a bare LED to one with the collar? Personally I'd have to say that the collar gives us that efficiency hit, but I obviously haven't played with it yet so I don't know how large that drop is.


I have not done those tests myself but the supplied information seems reasonable. It says the bare LED puts out 2136 lm and adding the collar takes that down to 1090 lm. 

Now when I say you can get neutral white output without the efficiency hit you have to understand the context which maybe was not clear enough. The context, and really the intent of this technology, is throw enhancement through increasing of surface brightness or intensity. 

To get a neutral output LED it normally takes a thicker layer of phosphor which reduces the output and therefore the surface brightness. 

Now we have a way to warm the light and increase surface brightness without needing to use that intensity sapping thick layer of phosphor. 

If I wanted to take the neutral white LED and have it match the cool white version's intensity I would have to run the neutral white harder just to match the cool white. 

Let's put this in more practical terms. I could use the collar on the DEFT and simultaneously reduce the current consumption and lower the CCT. So longer runtimes with better color while having equivalent or greater lux in the existing product.


----------



## Th232 (Jun 9, 2010)

Thanks for the clarification, got it now.:thumbsup:


----------



## TorchBoy (Jun 9, 2010)

Am I the only person to have started wondering what the aluminium ring on the XR-E really does?


----------



## Th232 (Jun 9, 2010)

My understanding is that it pretty much converts the emission pattern from lambertian to the tighter one shown in the XR-E datasheet. Cree's LED luminaire design guide shows on page 7 that the output pattern is pretty similar to that of a CFL, so maybe that was its original purpose?


----------



## saabluster (Jun 9, 2010)

Th232 said:


> My understanding is that it pretty much converts the emission pattern from lambertian to the tighter one shown in the XR-E datasheet. Cree's LED luminaire design guide shows on page 7 that the output pattern is pretty similar to that of a CFL, so maybe that was its original purpose?


The ring is not directly responsible for the tighter beam. That would be the job of the lens. However the fact that the ring sits under and raises the lens does narrow the beam more than it otherwise would be. The purpose of the ring is to allow a mounting point for the lens. It also keeps the optical gel in between the lens and die from going everywhere. They did however make the inside of that ring look like a teeny tiny reflector. All that does is boost the lumen output of the package though. No beam changing effects to be seen from it.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 9, 2010)

Back on topic. I took some pictures of the LED with and without the collar.

The camera settings are frozen and the current to the LED is unchanged from shot to shot.

First up is the LED without the collar and then with the collar.










As you can clearly see the collar makes a marked improvement in surface brightness and a warming of the color. Interestingly you can see more of a concentration towards the center.


----------



## kito109654 (Jun 9, 2010)

Well doesn't the center concentration make sense because of the shape of the collar? Very nice pictures, the color change is sweet.


----------



## MrGman (Jun 10, 2010)

can't you crop in those photos somewhat so we can see the die magnified a bit more and less of the empty black space? Good work in finding a way to make a clear visual presentation though.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 10, 2010)

MrGman said:


> can't you crop in those photos somewhat so we can see the die magnified a bit more and less of the empty black space? Good work in finding a way to make a clear visual presentation though.


Ask and you shall receive. 





Notice how you can now see the light reflecting off the bond wires from the collar. 




If anyone wants to take these pictures and make a rotating gif be my guest. That would be the best way to see the change with and without the collar.


----------



## MrBenchmark (Jun 10, 2010)

It is absolutely amazing that the same amount of electricity is used to generate both of those pictures. People who are still talking about efficiency need to contemplate that for a minute and understand a couple of fundamental points:
1. Not all work is created equal - some work is more useful than other work.
2. Maximizing the useful work is the soul of efficiency.


----------



## Painful Chafe (Jun 10, 2010)

John_Galt said:


> That's kind of my point, though admittedly ill explained... He stated something about increasing output by putting his light recycler thing on it, but didn't say anything about whether it increased lux or lumens...



Perhaps he is saying that the light collected and redirected doubles the output by using the waisted light. Or he may be saying they are using the side reflected light and redirecting it to the hotspot thus increasing the lux. He isn't doing a very good job describing it though. Not sure why he is being so vague.


----------



## Machete God (Jun 10, 2010)

_(images from saabluster's post #171)_


----------



## MrBenchmark (Jun 10, 2010)

Folks who don't understand how this can work need to look at that picture - clearly the chip is significantly brighter, and yet is consuming no more current. In general, brighter = better. (9 out of 10 threads on this forum agree on this! )

The tradeoff is you lose the sidespill. If the spill is important, this isn't a great idea. If you want throw, or the spill is actively undesirable, say for a projector (you don't want the spill - it washes out whatever is on the screen where you are projecting your image) then this is simply amazing.

One of the things this seems to indicate is that current LEDs leave a *lot* on the table - if the phosphor of the LED were completely saturated by the output from the internal blue LED, I am guessing this idea probably wouldn't be of much benefit.


----------



## get-lit (Jun 10, 2010)

I haven't seen anyone say it doesn't work for a while now. A lense the size of the collet could utilize all of that size spill too, but it's about how that side spill is utilized differently.

I was one of the last to be convinced because I made a mistake in my inital calculations.

This really has unlimited potential with increases in collect and emitter reflectance, as well as increases in collet and emitter surface precision!


----------



## TorchBoy (Jun 10, 2010)

*Re: Anything out there brighter at a distance than our flashlight?*



MrBenchmark said:


> Folks who don't understand how this can work need to look at that picture - clearly the chip is significantly brighter, and yet is consuming no more current.


But knowing that it _does_ work won't help those people understand _how_ it works. :nana: I think if LED phosphors were close to being overloaded at the rated maximums we'd see more blue-shift when getting close. That would be undesirable.

Thanks for the pics saabluster.


----------



## RedForest UK (Jun 10, 2010)

MrBenchmark said:


> Folks who don't understand how this can work need to look at that picture - clearly the chip is significantly brighter, and yet is consuming no more current. In general, brighter = better. (9 out of 10 threads on this forum agree on this! )



Okay, so if I'm understanding this correctly then it's only brighter from the angle the picture was taken from, not overall. That is the point, it takes a chunk of light emitted from the sides of the led, reflects it back onto the led, where 40% or so is lost, and the other 60% reflects back out the aperture. Luckily a higher percentage of blue shift spectum light is absorbed than higher cct spectrum so the light appears 'warmer'.

A reflector would be more efficient overall, as none of the sidespill light would be taking a round trip back off the led and so you would get that extra 40% of sidespill light back if it was a well fitted reflector, however reflectors for some reason can not focus light as well as an aspheric anyway. These dont use the side spill light from an led at all so that is effectively wasted. So with this, in an aspheric set-up you are recouping almost 60% of that wasted light and throwing it out the front via the asperic, thus giving after some calculation an extra 12% of throw?

One more perhaps stupid question; could you not use a well fitted reflector behind an aspheric lense to focus more of the light out of the front directly without having to first reflect it back onto the led and take the efficiency hit, or is this just not a plausible optical design?


----------



## saabluster (Jun 10, 2010)

MrBenchmark said:


> It is absolutely amazing that the same amount of electricity is used to generate both of those pictures. People who are still talking about efficiency need to contemplate that for a minute and understand a couple of fundamental points:
> 1. Not all work is created equal - some work is more useful than other work.
> 2. Maximizing the useful work is the soul of efficiency.


So true. So true.



Machete God said:


> _(images from saabluster's post #171)_


 Thank you so much for doing that for me. I've never had much success making gifs. That turned out perfect.:thumbsup:



RedForest UK said:


> thus giving after some calculation an extra 12% of throw?


Well first off throw is not the word I would use here as we still have not come to a conclusion on how to quantify throw just yet. (this subject is handled in another thread). Let's use the word lux. This collar will translate into a 58% higher lux reading. 


RedForest UK said:


> One more perhaps stupid question; could you not use a well fitted reflector behind an aspheric lense to focus more of the light out of the front directly without having to first reflect it back onto the led and take the efficiency hit, or is this just not a plausible optical design?


I have just such a design and while it may be optically more efficient it will not create the increased throw that this collar can.


----------



## admacdo (Jun 10, 2010)

Ah, this thread has been awesome. 
Many times, I've seen industry and technical people wander into forums the world over and with a few misplaced terms, get totally smoked. I've been in three industries where the one term used had different understandings of meaning. It caused some grief each time with some re-education required. 

What is gratifying to see on cpf is the level of knowledge and discovery that is shared here, along with the standard level of scepticism. 
Look at other forums that you may be on and think about what you can see in this one. This thread has all the traits of a good teledrama. 

Event, Surprise, disbelief, support, counter claim, calculations, negotiation, peer review, support, argument, explanation ( close male bonding through calculation ) turning point for one of the protagonists and a successful conclusion which sees potential for the future. 

Everyone seems genuinely happy and have learned stuff.

I could almost map the characters here to "Lord of the Rings" (saabluster, you're Gandalf..)

This type of situation is rare in the outside world. Thanks to the participants. It has been so far quite educational to the technical level of competence of participants of cpf, not to mention the general decorum of the members here. 

This doesn't happen very often in other places on the 'Net. 

Well done, gentlemen.


----------



## LukeA (Jun 10, 2010)

^I agree. This forum has a higher-than-normal incidence of cerebral technical threads that maintain good critical thinking and don't devolve into ad hominem flaming.


----------



## Gene43 (Jun 10, 2010)

What He Said!!! :twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs


----------



## get-lit (Jun 10, 2010)

I'm not sure what is more amazing, this new and novel concept, or how strangely it was introduced to us. Put those both together and it's one hell of a wild ride.

edit- Too bad this could never apply to short arc HID lights for search lights. The light source is in the middle of gas which can't reflect light from the collar to the aperture, and the cathode does not have a surface than could ever have consistent surface angles anywhere near the center of intensity to direct the light from the collar to the aperture :mecry:


----------



## TorchBoy (Jun 11, 2010)

get-lit said:


> I'm not sure what is more amazing, this new and novel concept, or how strangely it was introduced to us.


A clear explanation straight off certainly would have been nice, but I'd say the concept isn't really so novel. HIR incandescent bulbs use a similar basic principle; infrared light is reflected inward to make the filament hotter and therefore more luminous, and more light for the same power means more efficient. The difference is that HIR bulbs really are more efficient, not just more throwy. (If anyone wants to use that idea - a thin-film coated lens dome for example - to reflect just blue light back in to an LED to possibly make it really more efficient, be my guest.)


----------



## saabluster (Jun 11, 2010)

get-lit said:


> edit- Too bad this could never apply to short arc HID lights for search lights.


I have been announcing the imminent downfall of HID lights by LEDs for some time. They laugh and laugh but the end is nearer than they think. 





TorchBoy said:


> I'd say the concept isn't really so novel.



Hmm... that's a hard one. On the one hand the idea is absurdly simple and obvious. On the other hand LEDs have been around for quite some time and it hasn't been thought of before. (that we know of)


----------



## kramer5150 (Jun 11, 2010)

interesting!! great thread!


----------



## kramer5150 (Jun 11, 2010)

saabluster said:


> I have been announcing the imminent downfall of HID lights by LEDs for some time. They laugh and laugh but the end is nearer than they think.



I'm a fan of HIDs... but I agree with you, and can forsee such a time in the future as well.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jun 11, 2010)

kramer5150 said:


> I'm a fan of HIDs... but I agree with you, and can forsee such a time in the future as well.



Me, I'm enjoying the present, and HID's and Incan's are just fine with me.

Bill


----------



## saabluster (Jun 11, 2010)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Me, I'm enjoying the present, and HID's and Incan's are just fine with me.
> 
> Bill


OK I probably should not have made comment on the HIDs.Sorry. Sufficed to say your future in my now though.(wink wink) Before we go way off on tangents lets leave it at that. We can leave the "vs" conversations elsewhere.


----------



## ama230 (Jun 11, 2010)

Man I give kudos to this guy for keeping his cool early on because you guys were quite harsh and showing no or little remorse. lovecpf What happened to the welcome, so and so. Where's the love?lovecpf. 

Anyways from the photovoltaic's aspect of this(PV panels and LEDs are very similar but different processing(Photons In/Photons Out) and the help of Albert Einstein I will hopefully explain this a little better. As the law of conservation states, there is no extra energy being created here its just being transferred and thus projected in a more useful way(efficiency). 

Then for the photons being slapped around here:whoopin:, when you concentrate a source of photons when striking a PV panel you increase the efficiency and thus more work is being provided. This is then concerning diffusion, diffraction and reflection and when at least two of these are kept within a limit you will have almost 2-3x better results than before, and it almost seems like you are creating energy but you simply can not. Electricity, water and air all have the same general characteristics if you want to picture what is going on here. If you can relate to this crazy smart guy, til the end of days, has this theory of relativity that clearly states what is going on here. Then from what this kind gentleman describes still proves valid. Whether it be channeling electrons, protons, voltrons(just a joke), photons when directing these in a manner that applies to modern day physics(and undiscovered physics, as we have yet to find out) it has proven to be successful. 

Also I would like to see a new technology take off as leds are still an infant technology and deserve their spotlight. This is just like the new electric bike that has twice the torque of a ducati race bike and is lighter. These things are just around the corner and I am psyched as well as this led that will beat incandescent technologies like HID, flourecent, etc...(I am just relating the glass and vacuum technologies and I know how they are different but are ancient but still are good) Some use a filament and some use a charged gas and some plasmatic. 



Please keep these minds flexible as the "world is flat" comments are getting old and whats the fun in believing so. No one is saying your wrong but please give some slack as this guy has some stuff to back up his claims. 

Also I don't think you are seeing the main point is that the big wigs on here are being asked politely if they will first answer a question and two give their opinion. Also there is a little of mis-communication going on here as you guys have your lingo on here and some have to maybe catch up(me included):duh2:. This guy is not showing off but rather consulting with experts to validate his findings which I would consider as a huge compliment. Also, just like the few gifted, are bad at explaining what they are thinking so give them some time and both parties can learn.

If it hasn't been mentioned :welcome:Enginyr.


----------



## TorchBoy (Jun 11, 2010)

saabluster said:


> Hmm... that's a hard one. On the one hand the idea is absurdly simple and obvious. On the other hand LEDs have been around for quite some time and it hasn't been thought of before. (that we know of)


I should make clear that I draw a distinction between the concept and the implementation of it, especially applied to the quite different light source.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 11, 2010)

ama230 said:


> Man I give kudos to this guy for keeping his cool early on because you guys were quite harsh and showing no or little remorse.


Yes he does set a good example of how to comport oneself when challenged doesn't he? The fact remains that if you come to this site with "cutting edge tech" you better know what you are talking about and you had better be prepared to explain.
People were harsh because the claims that were made were unsubstantiated and frankly impossible. That deserved some degree of criticism although some comments got out of hand. 

Anyway I think we are all on the same page now so we can get on with things.


----------



## Bright+ (Jun 11, 2010)

enginyr said:


> Our main patent is the "DPR" Dual Parabolic Reflector. We put two parabolic 1/2's together and it will yield double the lifetime of arcing bulbs.
> 
> When a typical arc burns the electrode away it reduces output.
> 
> http://spie.org/x8812.xml?ArticleID=x8812



Why is the lamp lumen depreciation perfectly linear when its paired with your "technology" but follows the traditional exponential decay for the earlier parts of life with "traditional technology" reflectors


----------



## Machete God (Jun 12, 2010)

saabluster said:


> Thank you so much for doing that for me. I've never had much success making gifs. That turned out perfect.:thumbsup:


Thank you for your kind words, and you're welcome, but the pleasure was mine  I'm new to flashlights, and it was nice to be able to contribute in some way to a thread about cutting edge flashlight tech!

Also, +1 to the post below:



admacdo said:


> Ah, this thread has been awesome.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## get-lit (Jun 13, 2010)

saabluster said:


> I have been announcing the imminent downfall of HID lights by LEDs for some time. They laugh and laugh but the end is nearer than they think.


 
That's pretty enthusiastic. I'm quite confident that LED will not exceed short arc HID throw in my lifetime, unless there becomes a new magical compound that can withstand the heat from 200,000+ cd/cm^2 luminace. Once you've reached those values, it becomes more about compounds that can withstand high temperatures and about methods to cool them.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 13, 2010)

get-lit said:


> That's pretty enthusiastic. I'm quite confident that LED will not exceed short arc HID throw in my lifetime, unless there becomes a new magical compound that can withstand the heat from 200,000+ cd/cm^2 luminace. Once you've reached those values, it becomes more about compounds that can withstand high temperatures and about methods to cool them.


I don't know how many more years you have left but I'm confident LEDs will be beating short arcs in throw very very soon. Perhaps even as soon as already. Really it all depends on what particular light you are talking about. The maxablaster? Yeah that might take a little longer but it will happen. Keep in mind that LEDs do not need to reach the same luminance levels to have equal or more throw. We just need to be close. Because of the nature of the LED and its radiation pattern it can use an aspheric which is a better way to collimate.


----------



## elumen8 (Jun 13, 2010)

All this technical discussion is fascinating and educational....BUT...Saabluster, I call 'first dibs' on your prototype if you decide to put together a DEFT utilizing the collar in addition to your already proven design. :twothumbs

JB


----------



## Mjolnir (Jun 13, 2010)

Wow, I can't believe I just read through all 7 pages of that thread! I sure was an interesting read, especially since it seems like this tech actually works.

Saabluster, are you saying that you would use this collar device instead of the pre-collimator that you currently use (assuming you could devise some way for it to work with the smaller domed LEDs)? So instead of using some of the wasted light to make the light source appear larger before the main lens (as the pre-collimator does, if I understand correctly), you would simply have the original light source with more surface brightness? 

So you would have a warmer and more intense (albeit smaller) hotspot coming out the front? This seems like a very good development, even if it isn't yet completely compatible with the LEDs that most of our lights currently use.


----------



## get-lit (Jun 14, 2010)

saabluster said:


> I don't know how many more years you have left but I'm confident LEDs will be beating short arcs in throw very very soon. Perhaps even as soon as already. Really it all depends on what particular light you are talking about. The maxablaster? Yeah that might take a little longer but it will happen. Keep in mind that LEDs do not need to reach the same luminance levels to have equal or more throw. We just need to be close. Because of the nature of the LED and its radiation pattern it can use an aspheric which is a better way to collimate.


 
That depends upon which collimation method utilizes more of the light based upon the radiation pattern. Parabolic reflectors can already utilize 85+% of DC short arc light in large search lights. I definitely agree that LEDs may soon overthrow smaller hand-held HID lights. The more powerful that HID lights are, the more efficient and intense the central hot spot. Smaller HID lights don't take advantage of HID's true intensity capability, so LED can easily gain ground there. The problem for LEDs is that as they produce more light, they do not gain luminance, and lately they've been losing luminance while producing more light. But even if there were a way for LED to produce the intensities of the big guys, the emitter surface would need to be comprised of a compound that can withstand that kind of heat. As it stands, there is no such compound, and without it it's not possible without burning itself up. Keep in mind, we're not talking about cooled glass having to be an inch away like for large HID lights, for LED were talking the about glass-melting and metal-welding intensities, brighter than the surface of the sun, having to come directly from the emitter surface itself. So such a compound is needed just as much as an LED technology that could produce that kind of intensity. It would take some real marvels. Anything is possible I guess, and I hope it becomes possible in my lifetime. I want to play with it. Unfortunately as it stands I do not see any possibility.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 14, 2010)

get-lit said:


> That depends upon which collimation method utilizes more of the light based upon the radiation pattern. Parabolic reflectors can already utilize 85+% of DC short arc light in large search lights. I definitely agree that LEDs may soon overthrow smaller hand-held HID lights. The more powerful that HID lights are, the more efficient and intense the central hot spot. Smaller HID lights don't take advantage of HID's true intensity capability, so LED can easily gain ground there. The problem for LEDs is that as they produce more light, they do not gain luminance, and lately they've been losing luminance while producing more light. But even if there were a way for LED to produce the intensities of the big guys, the emitter surface would need to be comprised of a compound that can withstand that kind of heat. As it stands, there is no such compound, and without it it's not possible without burning itself up. Keep in mind, we're not talking about cooled glass having to be an inch away like for large HID lights, for LED were talking the about glass-melting and metal-welding intensities, brighter than the surface of the sun, having to come directly from the emitter surface itself. So such a compound is needed just as much as an LED technology that could produce that kind of intensity. It would take some real marvels. Anything is possible I guess, and I hope it becomes possible in my lifetime. I want to play with it. Unfortunately as it stands I do not see any possibility.


I'm not going to continue down this off topic path here in this thread. Sufficed to say the materials do exist and it is not if it is when. You are also missing some very important aspects that will allow this to be possible. See if you can find a thread dealing with this topic and if not make one and we can continue there.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 14, 2010)

Mjolnir said:


> Wow, I can't believe I just read through all 7 pages of that thread! I sure was an interesting read, especially since it seems like this tech actually works.
> 
> Saabluster, are you saying that you would use this collar device instead of the pre-collimator that you currently use (assuming you could devise some way for it to work with the smaller domed LEDs)? So instead of using some of the wasted light to make the light source appear larger before the main lens (as the pre-collimator does, if I understand correctly), you would simply have the original light source with more surface brightness?
> 
> So you would have a warmer and more intense (albeit smaller) hotspot coming out the front? This seems like a very good development, even if it isn't yet completely compatible with the LEDs that most of our lights currently use.



Well there is not time to incorporate this into the DEFT at this time. We are about to stop producing the DEFT. I will certainly pursue this for any pertinent future products however. The possibilities make me salivate just thinking about it.


----------



## Mjolnir (Jun 14, 2010)

saabluster said:


> Well there is not time to incorporate this into the DEFT at this time. We are about to stop producing the DEFT. I will certainly pursue this for any pertinent future products however. The possibilities make me salivate just thinking about it.



Oh, I hadn't heard that. Either way, keep us aprised; it seems like this technology could produce an even better aspheric thrower than the DEFT.


----------



## get-lit (Jun 15, 2010)

saabluster said:


> Sufficed to say the materials do exist and it is not if it is when.


 
Show me the magic, aint holdin my breath on that one lol


----------



## get-lit (Jun 15, 2010)

saabluster said:


> Well there is not time to incorporate this into the DEFT at this time. We are about to stop producing the DEFT. I will certainly pursue this for any pertinent future products however. The possibilities make me salivate just thinking about it.


 
I'd personally like to see smaller versions of the deft, sacrifice some throw to make it more pocketable.


----------



## ama230 (Jun 16, 2010)

alpg88 said:


> as old 1.99 beeper commercials said, we could tell you how we do it, but do you really care?
> 
> 
> I like this guys attitude.... Most of the stuff I develop is rather simple but when you explain how you did what you did, they:
> ...


----------



## MikeAusC (Jul 14, 2010)

I wonder how much improvement this Collar will make with XR-E LEDs, since they have a narrower beam than the CBT LEDs.

The XR-E has a half-intensity angle of +-45 degrees, whereas the CBT has a half-intensity angle of +-55 degrees.


----------



## MikeAusC (Jul 14, 2010)

I've read all 206 msgs here, but I'm surprised there's been no mention that this technology has already been licenced to a torch manufacturer - and focussed:naughty: specifically on "Throwers".

From http://www.ereleases.com/pr/wavien-...dustrial-taiwan-flashlight-applications-35490


"VALENCIA, Calif., May 10, 2010 — Wavien and TaYih today announced that TaYih Industrial Co., Ltd. has licensed Wavien’s Premien(TM) LED Recycling technology for use in ultra-narrow beam, high-output tactical LED flashlights. This new design produces over 80% increase in output intensity compared to standard technology. Wavien’s Premien Recycling Collar is a very low-cost component that captures the wasted light in conventional LED lighting designs, recycles the light, and directs it back into the output beam. Wavien continues to optimize the system performance using the Recycling Collar and plans to expand the technology into other lighting systems that are compatible with standard lighting fixtures.
“The ability to brightly illuminate an object from a distance with sufficient brightness has been a goal for many lighting designers, especially for specialty flashlight systems where an ultra-narrow, targeted high-intensity beam is needed, such as search and rescue, and law enforcement operations,” stated Dr. Kenneth Li, President and CEO of Wavien, Inc., who is also the inventor of the technology."


----------



## zzonbi (Oct 3, 2010)

Old idea, well done nonetheless. As expected efficiency suffers, there's roughly half the flux now in exchange for 1.5x the lux, smaller solid angle, less blue.

Since there's little else to do besides retroreflection (better dies, nanopatterns, high amps/low temps), it's worth it for higher brightness. A similar idea is to replace part of the phosphor with a mirror.

Pitty those CBTs aren't cheaper.


----------



## enginyr (Mar 29, 2011)

ama230 said:


> Man I give kudos to this guy for keeping his cool early on because you guys were quite harsh and showing no or little remorse. lovecpf What happened to the welcome, so and so. Where's the love?lovecpf.
> 
> Anyways from the photovoltaic's aspect of this(PV panels and LEDs are very similar but different processing(Photons In/Photons Out) and the help of Albert Einstein I will hopefully explain this a little better. As the law of conservation states, there is no extra energy being created here its just being transferred and thus projected in a more useful way(efficiency).
> 
> ...



Thank you!!!


----------

