# Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA



## saabluster

They just won't let up.

"Cree... announces a breakthrough new lighting-class LED platform, the XLamp® XM LED. This new single chip LED delivers record-breaking efficacy of 160 lumens per watt at 350 mA. The LED also delivers 750 lumens at 2 A, which is equivalent to the light output of a 60 W incandescent light bulb at less than 7 watts."

The important part for us is that this is a single chip device. I'm sure it will be larger still than the XP-G but that hasn't stopped the adoption of Luminus LEDs. Not available till Fall 2010 but at least we can trust Cree to actually do what they say. Nice to see something that will be purchasable instead of just lab results.


----------



## spencer

Dang. This is very nice. And it will be available this fall!

EDIT: Anyone wanna guess the die size? 4mm^2?


----------



## pepko

yes, I think it also ... 4mm2 die ...


----------



## camelNotation

I'm hoping the die size will be 2mm^2, like the XP-G. Given that the thermal resistance of the package is so low, such a small die may be reasonable. (Tell me if I'm dreaming.)


----------



## JohnR66

Great! Perhaps now there can be department store bulbs with a lamp efficiency north of 100 lumens per what instead of those current LED ones that are 20-40 l/w. :laughing:


----------



## Alex K.

Great! Gotta buy me one!


----------



## mds82

that sounds sweet!


----------



## Burgess

What ? ? ?


Nobody has yet demanded


A *Neutral-White* version ? ! ? ! ?



PS: Thank you to Saabluster, for keeping us informed. 
_


----------



## saabluster

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it will be 2.45x2.45mm. I hope it will be smaller than that but unless they do more on the thermal front than they have been doing with the recent LEDs it probably will be big to get numbers like that. I really wish they would come out with an LED that is mounted on a chuck of SiC like the XR-E. It would benefit the small pocket projector as well as flashlight markets. Sure the price would be higher but it sure would be nice to be able to overdrive these newer dice like we can the old XR-E. We need more development on the surface brightness front!:scowl: That has been completely ignored. Oh well.:shrug:


----------



## vali

Burgess said:


> What ? ? ?
> 
> 
> Nobody has yet demanded
> 
> 
> A *Neutral-White* version ? ! ? ! ?
> 
> 
> 
> PS: Thank you to Saabluster, for keeping us informed.
> _



Me, me, me, me !!!

I want a Neutral-White version, NOW!


----------



## WeLight

saabluster said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb and say it will be 2.45x2.45mm. I hope it will be smaller than that but unless they do more on the thermal front than they have been doing with the recent LEDs it probably will be big to get numbers like that. I really wish they would come out with an LED that is mounted on a chuck of SiC like the XR-E. It would benefit the small pocket projector as well as flashlight markets. Sure the price would be higher but it sure would be nice to be able to overdrive these newer dice like we can the old XR-E. We need more development on the surface brightness front!:scowl: That has been completely ignored. Oh well.:shrug:



Sorry guys try 5mm square


----------



## jirik_cz

That is a pretty large die...


----------



## spencer

Is this fact? If it is then its slightly disappointing because it's pretty much the same package as the SST-50.


----------



## eyeeatingfish

Are any LED flashlights run at 2 amps??


----------



## mds82

spencer said:


> Is this fact? If it is then its slightly disappointing because it's pretty much the same package as the SST-50.




All of you are just guessing at this point. how about we wait for some real answers before we start making assumptions.


----------



## Linger

eyeeatingfish said:


> Are any LED flashlights run at 2 amps??


Many. I have like 6 that are +2A. Lots of modders have +5A torches in hand.

So Cree increased the die size to help increase lumen output.

Question - Why is drive voltage not meantioned?


----------



## Kestrel

Linger said:


> Question - Why is drive voltage not meantioned?


I was initially curious about this as well.
I know I'm only a part-timer / lightweight in this section, but running the numbers from the article:
"At 2 A, an XM LED produces 750 lumens at 110 lumens per watt."
750/110 = 6.8 watts
6.8w / 2A = 3.41 volts
... which sounds about right.


----------



## brted

Linger said:


> Many. I have like 6 that are +2A. Lots of modders have +5A torches in hand.
> 
> So Cree increased the die size to help increase lumen output.
> 
> Question - Why is drive voltage not meantioned?



Aren't they implying 2.9V at 350mA and 3.4V at 2A?

160 lumens output at 160 lumens per watt (1 watt) at 350mA

750 lumens at 110 lumens per watt (6.8 watts) at 2 amps.


----------



## saabluster

WeLight said:


> Sorry guys try 5mm square


 So basically the same as the SST-50 then? 2.25 x 2.25?


----------



## WeLight

saabluster said:


> So basically the same as the SST-50 then? 2.25 x 2.25?


Details are yet to be released, but its expected they will have a demo at Lightfair, it will be larger than XP platform


----------



## znomit

WeLight said:


> Sorry guys try 5mm square



5mm x 5mm, or 5 square mm?


----------



## saabluster

znomit said:


> 5mm x 5mm, or 5 square mm?



I was wondering what he meant as well but since 25 square mm would be insane I assumed he meant 5 square mm. If it is 25 square then I am extremely underwhelmed to say the least.

They say it will be two months until samples are even ready. Although I'm sure Cree will get this to market within the year as they expect it seems a bit premature to put out this press release when you can't even get samples.:shakehead


----------



## I came to the light...

They say it is bigger than the XP-E... they don't mention the XP-G, which would make me think it is smaller than the XP-G. However, they also say the XP-E is CREE's flagship model, so maybe the references are just outdated. 

WeLight, I'm a little confused by your phrasing. Are you guessing or do you have more information? 



saabluster said:


> I was wondering what he meant as well but since 25 square mm would be insane I assumed he meant 5 square mm. If it is 25 square then I am extremely underwhelmed to say the least.
> 
> They say it will be two months until samples are even ready. Although I'm sure Cree will get this to market within the year as they expect it seems a bit premature to put out this press release when you can't even get samples.:shakehead





CREE said:


> Samples of the XLamp XM LEDs are available for order with standard lead times and commercial availability is targeted for Fall 2010.



I don't know how to request a sample, so it is possible the article's just wrong, but it would seem they are available as samples.


----------



## saabluster

I came to the light... said:


> They say it is bigger than the XP-E... they don't mention the XP-G, which would make me think it is smaller than the XP-G. However, they also say the XP-E is CREE's flagship model, so maybe the references are just outdated.
> 
> WeLight, I'm a little confused by your phrasing. Are you guessing or do you have more information?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how to request a sample, so it is possible the article's just wrong, but it would seem they are available as samples.



My Cree Rep says it's a two month wait for the new LEDs minimum. That was not a guess. Samples are not for the general public.


----------



## chris_m

I came to the light... said:


> They say it is bigger than the XP-E... they don't mention the XP-G, which would make me think it is smaller than the XP-G. However, they also say the XP-E is CREE's flagship model, so maybe the references are just outdated.


Well to be strictly accurate they say it has a larger footprint than the XP series, which means package size rather than die size, so the die could be anything - though it seems unlikely the die wouldn't be bigger, otherwise why not keep the same package?

Have to admit to being slightly disappointed too if the surface brightness is really less again than an XP-G (leaving the XP-E as the surface brightness champ). I've yet to go to feel the desire to build an XP-G lamp due to the difficulty of making something with decent throw compared to my old XR-E ones.


----------



## I came to the light...

saabluster said:


> My Cree Rep says it's a two month wait for the new LEDs minimum. That was not a guess. Samples are not for the general public.



Thanks, I wasn't sure what exactly was meant by that part of the announcement. (My question about guessing was directed at WeLight)


----------



## Hugo2x

I am so excited, but what ever happened to XR-E R5's coming out?


----------



## rizky_p

can wait to see what it look like......i haven't jump on SST family yet or maybe wont. hope this would satisfy my future need


----------



## R33E8

That's cool, I wonder if they will make a MC-XM 

I'm happy I have stock in Cree


----------



## kramer5150

saabluster said:


> ...We need more development on the surface brightness front!:scowl: That has been completely ignored. Oh well.:shrug:



I agree with this completely. But thanks for posting this.


----------



## old4570

Looks interesting - Still waiting on the S2


----------



## Linger

So what 'we' get from this is that Cree's tech improvement permits larger chips: the multiple emitter mc-e type packages and concomitant dark cross/donut will not be salient issues in the near future.
?


----------



## tstartrekdude

I am almost sure that they are just putting a xp-g die in a bigger package, it says something to the effect of "very high efficacy at very high drive currents" 
2 amps is only adding 500ma's to the xp-g drive level, and with a better package it should be fine at that level. just makes the most sense the way they worded that, that its is the same die as the xp-g. so it might not be as bad for the throw mongers here as you guys think. the xr-e will still hold out as the top throwing led right now, but it should at lest keep up with the xp-e with a hot spot twice the size. 

I was a good bit disappointed at the xp-g, the added lumens did not make up for the lost lux like i had wished for. so for me this will just do the jobs that i had planed for the xp-g...YAY!


----------



## jirik_cz

Placing XP-G die in a different package wouldn't increase the efficiency at 350mA to 160lm/W IMHO. Must be a different die.


----------



## znomit

Looking at JTRs XPG R5 numbers and adding 7% for the jump to S2 bin.

S2 XPG die hits 160lm/W at 175mA.
And 375lm at 1A x2 =750lm.

:twothumbs


But _revolutionary_?


----------



## RedmEx

doublepost...my bad..


----------



## RedmEx

I suppose znomit had the same impression as I did:

From XR-E to XP-G the major improvement in efficiency was to double the die size plus throwing in some minor lab improvements. But from the given numbers in the announcement guessing is fairly easy. 160 lumen at 1 Watt eqauls a reduction of Vf down to 2.86 V at 350 mA.

Looking again in the data of JTR says : XP-G hits that Vf-level at 150 mA

Calculation of Vf at 2A: 750 lumen output at 110 lm/W means 6.82 Watts and 3.41 Volts: A bit higher than XP-G at 1A. This means the thermal path has been improved so droop is reduced.

XP-G hits 375 lumens at 1.1A so there must be improvements additional to bigger dies. 

All these comparisons suggest:

*They double the die size again...*well I don't mind, if it's for a reasonable prize !


----------



## milkyspit

Linger said:


> So what 'we' get from this is that Cree's tech improvement permits larger chips: the multiple emitter mc-e type packages and concomitant dark cross/donut will not be salient issues in the near future.
> ?




Linger, I don't really think the multi-chip arrangement itself is a sign of cheap or inferior technology as you imply... and in fact, I suspect the multi-chip arrangement will continue to be with us for some time into the future, and continue to incorporate the latest in single-core technologies, albeit with some lag time to move those technologies into the multi-core device.

Besides, multi-core (at least as designed into the MC-E) brings to the table some flexibility the single-core solutions cannot provide, such as the option of running at various voltages and with the RGB variants, blending for virtually any color across the entire spectrum. Plus it allows for all those cores to sit under one reflector, and Nailbender's Linger Special notwithstanding, that just isn't possible with single-core designs.

So to me the XM brings another tool to the toolbox... one well worth having, plus strategically valuable for Cree vs. Luminus.

As for the dark cross/donut, Cree could remove that from the MC-E in any of a number of ways... one would be a more textured dome similar to what Osram did with the Diamond Dragon. I can eliminate those artifacts, too, by any of several approaches... and there are optics/reflectors already on the market that show no donut or cross at all with the MC-E. Fraen makes one, though its part number escapes me at the moment.

Anyway, to me the XM announcement is good news! Just not due to elimination of the cross or donut hole.


----------



## BentHeadTX

I like the news,

Sure, not on the flashlight front unless you want a flood light but Cree is looking at lightbulb replacements. 750 lumens at 6.8 watts at 110 lumens per watt will be... 6.8 x .66666 = 4.5 watts of heat to get rid of. A screw in style bulb can handle 5 watts so throw in the heat from the AC to DC conversion and it now becomes possible. 

Then Cree has those dice in the lab that pump 206 lumens per watt so it should migrate to that new die so maybe 850 lumens at 5.15 watts for 165 lumens per watt? That would be at the 50% heat to light ratio and "60 watt incandescent" output. You would not need exotic and expensive cooling to handle 2.6 watts of heat even throwing in another half watt for the converter. 

Maybe late next year the single die LED 60 watt bulb replacements that won't overheat will be available. Figure for $25 a bulb, it will be worth replacing the CFL bulbs in the house and THAT is what I want to do. 

Another option is to put 5 of those LEDs in a bulb and drive them at 5 watts total for 800 lumens. It is almost at the level of 60 watt bulbs and would not have any problem with cooling. Expensive yes, but with that configuration you could replace the bulbs in your house, get 10 times lower energy consumption, no flicker like CFL, it will run cool and no need to replace the bulbs for another 10 to 20 years.


----------



## milkyspit

BentHeadTX said:


> I like the news,
> 
> Sure, not on the flashlight front unless you want a flood light but Cree is looking at lightbulb replacements. 750 lumens at 6.8 watts at 110 lumens per watt will be... 6.8 x .66666 = 4.5 watts of heat to get rid of. A screw in style bulb can handle 5 watts so throw in the heat from the AC to DC conversion and it now becomes possible.
> 
> Then Cree has those dice in the lab that pump 206 lumens per watt so it should migrate to that new die so maybe 850 lumens at 5.15 watts for 165 lumens per watt? That would be at the 50% heat to light ratio and "60 watt incandescent" output. You would not need exotic and expensive cooling to handle 2.6 watts of heat even throwing in another half watt for the converter.
> 
> Maybe late next year the single die LED 60 watt bulb replacements that won't overheat will be available. Figure for $25 a bulb, it will be worth replacing the CFL bulbs in the house and THAT is what I want to do.
> 
> Another option is to put 5 of those LEDs in a bulb and drive them at 5 watts total for 800 lumens. It is almost at the level of 60 watt bulbs and would not have any problem with cooling. Expensive yes, but with that configuration you could replace the bulbs in your house, get 10 times lower energy consumption, no flicker like CFL, it will run cool and no need to replace the bulbs for another 10 to 20 years.




I like the way you're thinking, BentHead, on all fronts. I've currently got a couple of those 45W equivalent LED bulbs from Lowe's running in the house. I must say, they're very nice. But they cost nearly $40 each and these new Cree dice would make a welcome improvement.


----------



## tstartrekdude

jirik_cz said:


> Placing XP-G die in a different package wouldn't increase the efficiency at 350mA to 160lm/W IMHO. Must be a different die.



I was speaking more to size than the die its self, yes they are making a bit of a leap forward in efficiency, still they state 2 amps as a very high drive current, so i can't really see it being bigger than 2mm^2


----------



## jirik_cz

Maybe the maximum current will be higher...


----------



## Gryloc

I just wanted to post to share my thoughts. I would not doubt if the die is from 4-6mm^2 just because it would take quite a breakthrough to do all this in 1mm^2 or probably 2mm^2. So, I did what I did previously when they announced the XP-G: I tried to make it relatable to current technology. I did this by scaling the performance of existing LED emitters to see if it is similar to the new technology.

Therefore I took the sample measurements of jtr1962's XP-G R5-bin and scaled them to different equivalent die sizes. I scaled the dies to sizes ranging from 3mm^2 to 6mm^2 (and I tossed in a 1mm^2 scaling for the heck of it). One thing that I did not do is take the lumen output of my simulated dies at 350mA or 2000mA and scale them up to match the announced lumen output levels from the press release.

First off, I want to apologize for using a free file hosting site. After 10 downloads each they will expire but I will try to re-host it and edit this post if they do expire. I forgot that the scaled tables are on "Sheet 2" of the excel sheet. _*(links removed - see post #61 for links to the updated file)*_

To my eyes, from this scaling/extrapolation, I think that the die is either 4mm^2 or 5mm^2 (like what WeLight said). I can imagine that just like when the XP-G was developed, they tossed in a few enhancements to the technology to make it more efficient than just making a 2mm^2 die with the same surface brightness of a XP-E R2-bin die (which scaling the XP-E up was very close to the performance of the XP-G). So I can imagine that some new technologies are being used in the making of the XM to make it more efficient at the lower current levels. However, I believe that the droop reduction is mostly due to the scaling of the die size. I did not do any of those droop calculations like what jtr1962 does, though. I may play with the numbers later to further scale up/down the charts to match the performance levels of the XM press release. I did this with the simulated XP-G charts from months ago and my simulations were extremely similar to the XP-G R5-bin sample data when jtr1962 did his testing.

I hope this stirs the conversation more...

Cheers,
-Tony

_*EDIT*_ - I removed the links above because I had quite a few formulation errors in them and I was not happy with that. Eck! Please discard your older file and refer to the newer post for the most updated file. Thanks!


----------



## saabluster

Gryloc said:


> I just wanted to post to share my thoughts. I would not doubt if the die is from 4-6mm^2 just because it would take quite a breakthrough to do all this in 1mm^2 or probably 2mm^2. So, I did what I did previously when they announced the XP-G: I tried to make it relatable to current technology. I did this by scaling the performance of existing LED emitters to see if it is similar to the new technology.
> 
> Therefore I took the sample measurements of jtr1962's XP-G R5-bin and scaled them to different equivalent die sizes. I scaled the dies to sizes ranging from 3mm^2 to 6mm^2 (and I tossed in a 1mm^2 scaling for the heck of it). One thing that I did not do is take the lumen output of my simulated dies at 350mA or 2000mA and scale them up to match the announced lumen output levels from the press release.
> 
> First off, I want to apologize for using a free file hosting site. After 10 downloads each they will expire but I will try to re-host it and edit this post if they do expire. I forgot that the scaled tables are on "Sheet 2" of the excel sheet. (Office 07 excel sheet) (Office 97-03 excel sheet)
> 
> To my eyes, from this scaling/extrapolation, I think that the die is either 4mm^2 or 5mm^2 (like what WeLight said). I can imagine that just like when the XP-G was developed, they tossed in a few enhancements to the technology to make it more efficient than just making a 2mm^2 die with the same surface brightness of a XP-E R2-bin die (which scaling the XP-E up was very close to the performance of the XP-G). So I can imagine that some new technologies are being used in the making of the XM to make it more efficient at the lower current levels. However, I believe that the droop reduction is mostly due to the scaling of the die size. I did not do any of those droop calculations like what jtr1962 does, though. I may play with the numbers later to further scale up/down the charts to match the performance levels of the XM press release. I did this with the simulated XP-G charts from months ago and my simulations were extremely similar to the XP-G R5-bin sample data when jtr1962 did his testing.
> 
> I hope this stirs the conversation more...
> 
> Cheers,
> -Tony


Incredible work! I think Welight was right. Your data seems to back that up. I don't know if that was a slip on his part or not but I am glad to see Cree has better thermal characteristics than the same sized Phlatlight. Means we should be able to run the Cree harder than the SST-50.


----------



## Tally-ho

Gryloc said:


> So I can imagine that some new technologies are being used in the making of the XM to make it more efficient at the lower current levels.



I found this news in dealextreme flashlight forum:

*Green LEDs for Efficient Lighting* (link)
Solar-cell manufacturing techniques could yield LEDs that require 20 percent less energy.

_...
LEDs, devices that emit photons when an electrical charge is applied to them, are more efficient and last longer than incandescent lightbulbs. By varying the composition of the semiconductor LEDs, materials scientists can coax the devices into emitting different colors. At the minimum, producing white light requires combining red, blue, and green, but so far, only red- and blue-light-emitting diodes are well developed. To produce green light, LED manufacturers typically apply one or more phosphor materials to blue LEDs. The phospors convert high energy blue spectrum light into lower-energy light through a process that reduces overall luminosity by approximately 20 percent.

To eliminate this loss of efficiency, researchers have tried to develop efficient green LEDs that don't require phosphors. But a major stumbling block is that the different known semiconductor materials that can be combined to emit green light, typically indium and gallium nitride, have different-sized crystal lattice structures. For semiconductors to work efficiently, each layer of the device has to have a similarly sized lattice structure as the layer above or below it.

To get around the lattice-size mismatch, NREL researchers used a fabrication method that they had previously developed for building highly efficient multi-junction solar cells. Their method relies on using additional layers of other semiconducting materials with intermediate-sized lattice structures that bridge the gap between the disparate-sized semiconductors. "If you try to do it in one shot, the whole thing will be defective," says Angelo Mascarenhas, team leader for solid state spectroscopy in the Center for Basic Sciences at NREL. "You have to grow a sequence of layers in a step-wise fashion."
..._


----------



## saabluster

Tally-ho said:


> _LEDs, devices that emit photons when an electrical charge is applied to them, are more efficient and last longer than incandescent lightbulbs. By varying the composition of the semiconductor LEDs, materials scientists can coax the devices into emitting different colors. At the minimum, producing white light requires combining red, blue, and green, but so far, only red- and blue-light-emitting diodes are well developed. To produce green light, LED manufacturers typically apply one or more phosphor materials to blue LEDs. The phospors convert high energy blue spectrum light into lower-energy light through a process that reduces overall luminosity by approximately 20 percent.
> 
> To eliminate this loss of efficiency, researchers have tried to develop efficient green LEDs that don't require phosphors. But a major stumbling block is that the different known semiconductor materials that can be combined to emit green light, typically indium and gallium nitride, have different-sized crystal lattice structures. For semiconductors to work efficiently, each layer of the device has to have a similarly sized lattice structure as the layer above or below it._
> 
> http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/25028/?a=f


Thanks for the info but it does not belong in this thread. Try making a new thread for that.:thumbsup:


----------



## Tally-ho

saabluster said:


> Thanks for the info but it does not belong in this thread.



Read it again and you will probably understand why I put this here. I do not pretend that CREE use this to improve efficiency of is new LED, but it could be a clue.


----------



## blasterman

Diatribe from the press release:



> The LED also delivers 750 lumens at 2 A, which is equivalent to the light output of a 60 W incandescent light bulb at less than 7 watts.


 
Notice we're always comparing *ugly* cool white emitters (with the same CRI as a circa 1978 K-mart brand fluorecent tube) to incan light bulbs. Maybe Cree should realize not everybody who reads their press releases is a moron. 



> Another option is to put 5 of those LEDs in a bulb and drive them at 5 watts total for 800 lumens


 
I'd rather just use a single 800lumen LED that's available *now* and not obsess if it's made by Cree or not. 

Question: As I understand the technological constraints of LED technology, current density causes a huge problem with quantum efficiency and the larger die is just a natural progression to solve this?


----------



## znomit

Tally-ho said:


> Read it again and you will probably understand why I put this here. I do not pretend that CREE use this to improve efficiency of is new LED, but it could be a clue.


 
Read the earlier posts by myself and Gryloc. Theres no huge breakthrough here, just using an XPG S2 die thats twice the size.


----------



## TorchBoy

Gryloc said:


> To my eyes, from this scaling/extrapolation, I think that the die is either 4mm^2 or 5mm^2 (like what WeLight said).





saabluster said:


> Incredible work! I think Welight was right.


That may have been what he meant but what he actually said was 5mm square, not 5mm^2. It's very hard to believe it would be 25mm^2.


----------



## saabluster

TorchBoy said:


> That may have been what he meant but what he actually said was 5mm square, not 5mm^2. It's very hard to believe it would be 25mm^2.



I know but I think we can use reason and come to the right conclusion here.


----------



## Odysseus

I have to agree about the Neutral White. Haven't seen XP-Gs in Neutral or Warm White. Want to see these, too!:thumbsup:


----------



## znomit

saabluster said:


> I know but I think we can use reason and come to the right conclusion here.


 
Imagine what current a 5x5mm die could hold....

But assuming the die is actually a reasonable 5mm^2... isn't 2A a little low for a max current (though perhaps reasonable for a fixed lighting application with passive cooling)? The XPG has a current density of 750mA/mm^2 so a 5 sq mm die should handle over 3A.
1000lm at 3A maybe?


----------



## saabluster

znomit said:


> Imagine what current a 5x5mm die could hold....
> 
> But assuming the die is actually a reasonable 5mm^2... isn't 2A a little low for a max current (though perhaps reasonable for a fixed lighting application with passive cooling)? The XPG has a current density of 750mA/mm^2 so a 5 sq mm die should handle over 3A.
> 1000lm at 3A maybe?


Who ever said that was the max spec? Cree is conservative with things like this. Especially this early in the game. Remember when they announced the XP-G? They said nothing about an R5 bin or 1.5A capability. All that came later. They are just teasing us with that 2A data point. They don't want too much info available until the product is on the market. It excites me that they seem to have done some work on the thermal side of things. Now if we could just get them to bring out high CRI versions of these new LEDs.


----------



## TorchBoy

As saabluster says, even if it is the max spec now, the XR-E and XP-R went from 700 mA to 1 A after release, while the XP-G went from 1 A to 1.5 A, again retroactively. But it would depend more on how well the XM package conducts heat away from the die.


----------



## John_Galt

I wonder how well it can handle being over-driven. Considering that a 5mm^2 die would be edging into Luminus' market share, I think Cree is probably going for smaller than that. 3mm^2, anyone?

We should take bets on surface area... lol

Mentioning Luminus again, what is the output at 2A? Probably significantly less, due to the low efficiency... So the Cree will definitely win the efficiency front...


----------



## TorchBoy

John_Galt said:


> Considering that a 5mm^2 die would be edging into Luminus' market share, ...


Why wouldn't they? :shrug:


----------



## BentHeadTX

blasterman said:


> I'd rather just use a single 800lumen LED that's available *now* and not obsess if it's made by Cree or not.
> 
> Question: As I understand the technological constraints of LED technology, current density causes a huge problem with quantum efficiency and the larger die is just a natural progression to solve this?



From what I gather, a regular screw in type light bulb can remove 5 watts of heat without any exotic cooling systems. Sure, you can have 800 lumens from a single LED RIGHT NOW but not without heat pipes, copper bases and current limiting with heat sensors. Take six XP-G R5 bin LEDs and drive them at one watt each for 800 lumens. Don't forget the copper and heat pipes to dump the heat so it will stay alive screwed into a socket. The LEDs themselves will produce around 4 watts of heat when driven at 6.4 watts, throw in the heat from the AC/DC converter regulator and it can be done. 

The COST is very high though. The best way to make LEDs live in light bulbs is a large surface area to easily pull the die heat away. Maybe in another year Cree will have a 6 sq. millimeter die that pumps 850 lumens at 4 watts. At the 212 lumen per watt level, it will produce 1.5 watts of heat which is very easily and cheaply dealt with. 

Now that incandescent bulbs are being legislated out of business in the next few years, the big money is in replacement bulbs. BILLIONS of light bulbs will migrate over to LED bulbs in the next 5 years--cha ching! 

Just as most people won't pay more than $20 for a flashlight, most people won't pay more than $20 for a light bulb. One big LED die that can pump 850 lumens without frying itself because it can produce less than 4 watts of heat doing so...that is the holy grail. The warm tints and assorted whining? The warm always follows the cool tints so all is good.


----------



## luckybucket

blasterman;
Notice we're always comparing [B said:


> ugly[/B] cool white emitters (with the same CRI as a circa 1978 K-mart brand fluorecent tube) to incan light bulbs.




That reminds me of Joe Versus the Volcanoe. I have always hated flourescents because of their crappy light characteristics. I'll be switching to leds soon after high cri P7's arrive.


----------



## Gryloc

Crap... Double post. Sorry.


----------



## Gryloc

Hey all. Thanks for the kind words. I completed those excel files in a hurry because I had to go to class. I was looking back through that file and noticed some huge errors. It was not jtr1962's data, but it was my lousy copy-pasting where formulas were not referenced to the right cells. 

So, I spent a little more time and practically re-did the excel worksheet to be correct. The new file has two worksheets. The first is a calculator that allows you to insert your own die size (in mm^2) and also change a multiplier number to make up (or compensate) for possible improvements in technology between the XP-G and the XM besides using a larger die. The second shows a series of tables for different die sizes (3, 4, 5, and 6 mm squared). These charts have a place to change a multiplier. Now you can compare the different die sizes, each with their own multipliers. Notice that in some die sizes, the current points may not be exactly at 350mA or 2000mA (due to scaling the current levels with die size). Well, at the bottom of each chart, I added a chart that shows the extrapolated Vf and lumen performance at 350mA and 2000mA. I used linear extrapolation, so technically, the estimates are not perfect. They should still be useful as a rough estimate. Finally, for the second worksheet, I pre-set the multiplier values differently in hopes of finding which die size fit best, so feel free to set all multipliers back to 1.00 to be able to directly compare each table.

I recommend that all of those that downloaded my last file to discard the file and use this one from now. Refer to this one (unless I update the file again). I will no longer think of that old file from here on out. I used rapidshare again, but I am going to cheat the system a little by posting three links (10 downloads each) for the same file. If one link expires, use the next. If someone still wants the file after the links expire, PM me.

Link 1 - Link 2 - Link 3

So, after playing with some multiplier values, it seems like the 4mm^2 die size simulation fits the press release the most. With a multiplier of 1.08, I was able to calculate the following: 163lm at 350mA with an efficiency of 162lm/W, and 758lm at 2000mA with an efficiency of 116lm/W. A 108% increase in surface brightness between after a while since the release of the XP-G seems possible. When I looked at the other die sizes (3 and 5 mm squared), the numbers seem to scale wrong. For example, for the 3mm^2 simulation, I can use a multiplier of 1.1 to reach an efficiency of around 160lm/W at 350mA, but the lumen output or efficiency at 2000mA would be way off.

This is just me ranting now, but I think that if these dies are at 4mm^2, then these would still be great for focusing in medium to large sized reflectors. Even in small reflectors, these would still produce a nice and clean, but floody beam (okay for most EDC lights). These could be the direct competitors to the SST-50, which could give Luminous a run for their money. A 5mm^2 die would not be too bad in comparison, but I am hoping it is 4mm^2 or smaller. Actually if they are 5mm^2 in die size, would this be a step back in surface brightness from the XP-G? I won't complain though. I am not very familiar with the SST products, but the XM is has less thermal resistance than the SST line? If so, I wonder if these can be driven really hard (I wish for 2A/mm^2). Cree does not have the experience like Luminous has with super high drive current levels, but I hope they really did their homework and got things right! Keep the new stuff coming! ...Now, how about a 8mm^2 "XS" to compete with the SST-90? I am dreaming again...

-Tony


----------



## TorchBoy

Gryloc said:


> Now, how about a 8mm^2 "XS" to compete with the SST-90? I am dreaming again...


I reckon they'll come up with that as their next project. It'll be about S3 efficiency bin. But they'll call it the XL. :thumbsup:


----------



## SmurfTacular

If this is a success, I think this will make P7's and SST-90's drop in price.


----------



## Curt R

The last Seoul P7 C bin LEDs that we got were priced at $8.00 each and the D bin at $8.55. The Cree MC-E 
is also at a similar price. SST-50s can be had at less than $14.00 each and the SST-90s at close to $30.00.
The most popular XP-G R5 and R4 units right now are overpriced. Seoul is selling the Cree XP-E copy as 
the Z5 LED. Prices are coming down, just not quickly to everyone's wishes.

Curt


----------



## SmurfTacular

Curt R said:


> The last Seoul P7 C bin LEDs that we got were priced at $8.00 each and the D bin at $8.55. The Cree MC-E
> is also at a similar price. SST-50s can be had at less than $14.00 each and the SST-90s at close to $30.00.
> The most popular XP-G R5 and R4 units right now are overpriced. Seoul is selling the Cree XP-E copy as
> the Z5 LED. Prices are coming down, just not quickly to everyone's wishes.
> 
> Curt



$8 for a P7? Where !?


----------



## Curt R

Smurf:

Those prices are for manufacturers from distributors. Prices like that are not available from retail outlets such 
as Avnet that want $22.00 for a reel of 250 P7 D bin LEDs. A distributor will not sell to the general public. 

Curt


----------



## spencer

Curt R said:


> $22.00 for a reel of 250 P7 D bin LEDs


Like as in $0.088 per LED? I could get in on that.


----------



## old4570

I heard cree was working on the dome , to make an emitter with less flood , to be more flashlight friendly than the current XP-G ..

Wonder if it has anything to do with this new LED .... 
I wonder if it will be packaged more like the XR-E as opposed to the XP-G


----------



## SmurfTacular

old4570 said:


> I heard cree was working on the dome , to make an emitter with less flood , to be more flashlight friendly than the current XP-G ..
> 
> Wonder if it has anything to do with this new LED ....
> I wonder if it will be packaged more like the XR-E as opposed to the XP-G



Well if you manufacture an emitter with less _natural_ flood, you will end up with less throw and_ more_ flood because of the reflector taking the floody light, and throwing it.


----------



## old4570

SmurfTacular said:


> Well if you manufacture an emitter with less _natural_ flood, you will end up with less throw and_ more_ flood because of the reflector taking the floody light, and throwing it.



Well , ????? I dont know , emitted angle of light ??

XR-E 90Deg 
XP-G 125deg 

So I guess the plan is to make an emitter more like the XR-E , so as to whether it will be this new one or not ?? 
If they build it one the same platform as the XR-E , it should work well as an upgrade with existing lights / reflectors / throwers . 

All I know is Cree is aware of the shortfall of the XP-G [ throw ] and are ?? thinking of doing or actually doing some thing about it ??? 

So I heard ! If it's BS , its BS . Butt !!! U never know ! The S2 was supposed to be available over a month ago , but apparently Cree is having yield problems , and there ??? are not enough S2 rated XP-G's coming of the production line ??? so I heard , where the S2's are going ??? , unfortunately Cree seems to be doing the AMD , tell people about it , and then keep them waiting !


----------



## SmurfTacular

Those *******s :laughing:

but congrats on them beating there own record :twothumbs

Cant wait to see these 160lm/w LED's mainstream


----------



## Dioni

Wow.. I saw this news just now! great!


----------



## blasterman

> All I know is Cree is aware of the shortfall of the XP-G [ throw ] and are ?? thinking of doing or actually doing some thing about it ???


 
You actually think there's engineers at Cree losing sleep because their new emitters don't have good throw in flashlights? That's like saying AMD has board meetings about the technical needs of overclocking geeks with LED fans in their cases 



> Cant wait to see these 160lm/w LED's mainstream


 
Yep....what the industry needs is another vaporware Cree emitter that when it does hit the street will have the same ugly color rendition as a single phosphor fluorescent tube. I mean seriously, what are the actual applications of a low CRI, cool white emitter? Even the fridges at the local grocery store are running LEDs are using neutral white.

This is where I'm really confused - I'm seeing more and more emphasis in the flashlight forums regarding higher CRI / neutral tinted emitters because low CRI cool-white only impresses house plants. Plus, you guys aren't thrilled about the increases in emitter size messing with your current optics. But, it's like some kind of cult response when Cree makes these press announcements.

It would be like Intel releasing new processor benchmarks using 16-bit code and nothing else, and all the fanboys clapping about it. You wouldn't see the 32-bit and 64-bit benchmarks until 6months down the line.


----------



## TorchBoy

blasterman said:


> It would be like Intel releasing new processor benchmarks using 16-bit code and nothing else, and all the fanboys clapping about it. You wouldn't see the 32-bit and 64-bit benchmarks until 6months down the line.


I don't understand what you mean by that. Care to elaborate?


----------



## old4570

blasterman said:


> You actually think there's engineers at Cree losing sleep because their new emitters don't have good throw in flashlights? That's like saying AMD has board meetings about the technical needs of overclocking geeks with LED fans in their cases
> 
> Actually , every time AMD gets in financial trouble , it turns to the overclocking crowd to bail them out ....
> 
> Even intel is recognizing the OC market , and is leaking unlocked CPU's to the performance crowd ...
> 
> When I was heavy into overclocking , I went through 20 CPU's easy ..
> Regular joe blow , buys a computer and thats it , overclockers spend a hell of a lot more than the average person .
> 
> Its not a good comparison , but obviously the industry takes more product , but to say we are not significant ?


----------



## jirik_cz

blasterman said:


> Yep....what the industry needs is another vaporware Cree emitter that when it does hit the street will have the same ugly color rendition as a single phosphor fluorescent tube. I mean seriously, what are the actual applications of a low CRI, cool white emitter? Even the fridges at the local grocery store are running LEDs are using neutral white.
> 
> This is where I'm really confused - I'm seeing more and more emphasis in the flashlight forums regarding higher CRI / neutral tinted emitters because low CRI cool-white only impresses house plants. Plus, you guys aren't thrilled about the increases in emitter size messing with your current optics. But, it's like some kind of cult response when Cree makes these press announcements.



*CREE*
:rock::bow::rock::bow::rock::bow:



I'm pretty sure that there will be warm, neutral and outdoor white XMs released too (sooner or later after CW emitters).

If you look at XP-G in neutral or outdoor white they have still pretty good efficiency. Not much worse than CW XP-G.


----------



## phantom23

jirik_cz said:


> I'm pretty sure that there will be warm, neutral and outdoor white XMs released too (sooner or later after CW emitters).
> 
> If you look at XP-G in neutral or outdoor white they have still pretty good efficiency. Not much worse than CW XP-G.



Outdorr white XP-Gs have even lower CRI than CW...


----------



## jirik_cz

Yes they have. But is it noticeable in the real use?


----------



## psychbeat

phantom23 said:


> Outdorr white XP-Gs have even lower CRI than CW...




dang REALLY?!

seems like in the real world tho it would
still be better outdoors for green brown contrast...


----------



## TorchBoy

jirik_cz said:


> Yes they have. But is it noticeable in the real use?


I note (once again) that a hot stove element has a CRI of 100; that *is* noticeable if I try using it to light my kitchen. CRI is not the be-all and end-all of good colour. Can we please get over it?


----------



## WeLight

blasterman said:


> You actually think there's engineers at Cree losing sleep because their new emitters don't have good throw in flashlights? That's like saying AMD has board meetings about the technical needs of overclocking geeks with LED fans in their cases
> 
> 
> 
> Yep....what the industry needs is another vaporware Cree emitter that when it does hit the street will have the same ugly color rendition as a single phosphor fluorescent tube. I mean seriously, what are the actual applications of a low CRI, cool white emitter? Even the fridges at the local grocery store are running LEDs are using neutral white.
> 
> This is where I'm really confused - I'm seeing more and more emphasis in the flashlight forums regarding higher CRI / neutral tinted emitters because low CRI cool-white only impresses house plants. Plus, you guys aren't thrilled about the increases in emitter size messing with your current optics. But, it's like some kind of cult response when Cree makes these press announcements.
> 
> It would be like Intel releasing new processor benchmarks using 16-bit code and nothing else, and all the fanboys clapping about it. You wouldn't see the 32-bit and 64-bit benchmarks until 6months down the line.


Whoah super harsh 
Vapourware and Cree and not something I have ever seen, when has Cree not delivered on anything it has promised. Application for low CRI leds, let me see Cree sales are USD600-700mill +, seems to be a few applications.
It is not that Cree wont release Hi CRI leds, they are in the pipeline, the reality is we are in the Flux Wars, he who is brightest rules. Anyone supplying hi CRI is doing so at very low efficacy, read the fine print on SSC and Rebel datasheets you need more leds to get the output, more cost, more layout, more system drive cost


----------



## chris_m

old4570 said:


> Well , ????? I dont know , emitted angle of light ??
> 
> XR-E 90Deg
> XP-G 125deg
> 
> So I guess the plan is to make an emitter more like the XR-E , so as to whether it will be this new one or not ??
> If they build it one the same platform as the XR-E , it should work well as an upgrade with existing lights / reflectors / throwers .
> 
> All I know is Cree is aware of the shortfall of the XP-G [ throw ] and are ?? thinking of doing or actually doing some thing about it ???


The thing is it's not the emitted angle of light which makes it hard to make the XP-G throw, it's the size of the die. As already discussed earlier in this very thread (and why this new LED with an even larger die won't be good for throw either).


----------



## saabluster

chris_m said:


> The thing is it's not the emitted angle of light which makes it hard to make the XP-G throw, it's the size of the die. As already discussed earlier in this very thread (and why this new LED with an even larger die won't be good for throw either).


Actually the size of the die has nothing to do with how well it throws. It is that surface brightness is lower than the XR-E. The emitter angle of light can play a small part as well.


----------



## TorchBoy

saabluster said:


> It is that surface brightness is lower than the XR-E. The emitter angle of light can play a small part as well.


Combining those two, could you call it the apparent surface brightness?


----------



## Nil Einne

So anyone seen the LED at Lightfair? http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1273670200777


----------



## ahorton

Nil Einne said:


> So anyone seen the LED at Lightfair? http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1273670200777



Good to see I'm not the only one who has been checking every few hours this week... hoping that someone will show me what I'll be spending my money on In October.


----------



## znomit




----------



## juplin




----------



## Nil Einne

Hmm XM*-L* eh? I was wondering what the -x was going to be


----------



## mellowman

The Vf of the XM-L seems ideal for regulated single 3.7v battery flashlights.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found

Nice. Pack those into a quad die and you've got 3K emitter lumens.


----------



## wechnivag

So it looks like its a 5mm^2 die.

Where did everyone go? Did we forget about the XM-L already? 

At the worst, this is like the SST-50 but much better efficiency! Isn't that great!


----------



## kengps

saabluster said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb and say it will be 2.45x2.45mm...... We need more development on the surface brightness front!:scowl: That has been completely ignored. Oh well.:shrug:


If it is 6 sq/mm as your guessing, then you have nothing new to offer Michael. You'd need over 2000 lumen with it to equal the surface brightness (and throw) of your 1.4 Amp DEFT models.


----------



## saabluster

kengps said:


> If it is 6 sq/mm as your guessing, then you have nothing new to offer Michael. You'd need over 2000 lumen with it to equal the surface brightness of your 1.4 Amp DEFT models.


Well we now know it is 2x2mm. Still you are correct that from a surface brightness perspective there still is nothing better than the XR-E/XP-E. The good thing is we should be able to run the XM harder than the SST-50. 2000 may just be possible with extremely good heatsinking.


----------



## Corvette6769

juplin said:


>


Where did you find this XLamp XM-L LED Overview?


----------



## znomit

Corvette6769 said:


> Where did you find this XLamp XM-L LED Overview?



http://ledinside.com/News_cree_LED_20100513


----------



## ahorton

wechnivag said:


> So it looks like its a 5mm^2 die.
> 
> Where did everyone go? Did we forget about the XM-L already?
> 
> At the worst, this is like the SST-50 but much better efficiency! Isn't that great!




I'm excited!

Where did you discover that its a 5mm^2 die? I can see that it's a 5 x 5mm package but that's all I found.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found

kengps said:


> If it is 6 sq/mm as your guessing, then you have nothing new to offer Michael. You'd need over 2000 lumen with it to equal the surface brightness (and throw) of your 1.4 Amp DEFT models.


 
There's plenty to offer if one cares more about flood than throw:twothumbs.


----------



## Nil Einne

I for one do await the XM-L. One reason I haven't commented that much is because while the graph and stuff are interesting, there's not that much for me to say until we actually start seeing some test samples and even better, widespread availability. I don't know enough to comment on the relevance of the die size and stuff. 

BTW, anyone ever seen a better version of that slide (or whatever it is)? It's quite difficult to make out the numbers, I probably could if I zoom in closely and consider what's logical but I haven't bothered yet.


----------



## tstartrekdude

come on guys, we where able to make 22 pages of random guesses and nonsensical responses about the xp-g, we have to be able to come up with some more for this 

How about drivers? dd off a 18650 should work fine, pushing like 3 something amps, but i think imr26650's are out, and thats all i use for any led bigger than the xr-e...so what drivers could we use with this and get the 3 or 4 amps that it really needs to shine.


----------



## ahorton

tstartrekdude said:


> ...random guesses and nonsensical responses ... we have to be able to come up with some more for this



Ok I'll play!


I want to use this to replace the 2 XP-Gs in my next batch of headlamps. 

It wiill be driven by a whole bunch of AMC7135 chips. Battery pack is 2 parallel 18650s which will last no more than 2 hours at 2A. Most of the time I will run it at about 150mA and get something like 80 lumens out of it.

I really like smooth flood so I'm waiting to see what optics and reflectors turn up. I would love to see 10mm ones like we did for XP but I suspect I'll settle for the 20mm ones that come out.

Or I may just a defocused PCX lens to get my smooth flood.


----------



## tstartrekdude

hmmm....throw.....i have been looking at the picture of the XM-L and it seems to only have 3 bound wires, now i have herd that the xr-e with 2 wires can handle about 2.5 or 3 amps before they go poof(someone with a lab power supply should really do a test, it would be good data to have if its not been done) so lets take the higher number cause at that amperage there will be a lot less heat coming from the die sense the current density will be lower, so they should be able to last a bit longer. thats 1.5 amps per wire(crazy if you think about how small they are) with three thats 4.5 amps....hmm...not really good news at all for the suffice brightness crowed(i am a member of it) at only a little over 1.1 amps per sq mm of die the wires might pop. and thats not even counting the heat problems of a bigger die.....i really wish cree would come out with a new line for the throw crowed, i want to kick my friend who is into laser's butt with a led someday


----------



## Gryloc

I have been meaning to post a picture that shows a scaled XM-L compared to some familiar LED emitters as a size comparison. I did this couple weeks ago:





In the picture above, I scaled the XM-L emitter seen in that previous flyer to match that of the other emitters above (scaling according to package size). I used Paint Shop Pro X2 and found various datasheets for the other emitters. I then carefully scaled the package size of the XM-L (5mm by 5mm) to match that of the nearby Luxeon V's 8mm diameter. If you placed an XM-L emitter in line with those other emitters and took a picture, it should look similar to the above picture. I guess to fit in with what is popular, I probably should try to scale the XM-L to see how it theoretically compares to the SST-50 and SST-90. Well, anybody can do the above (with decent software, a little patience, and a few minutes of their time).

I kind of do not care how big the actual die is, but instead the *apparent die size*! From the picture above, I see that the single XM-L die has an apparent size that is equivalent to the apparent die sizes of all four dies of the Luxeon V, the MC-E and the SSC P7. So, assuming that the optical qualities of the Luxeon, MC-E, and P7 are similar to that of this XM-L, the XM-L should behave similarly behind a reflector, or better, than those classic ~2mm by 2mm source size emitters! That is good news. 

The apparent die size varies so much from emitter to emitter (compared to actual die size), but I hear many people root only for the efficiency or overall output, surface brightness, and the die size. The apparent die size that affects "throw" performance quite a bit as well as those other factors.

Anyway, I hope that the picture above helps in some way... to move a little further away from speculation until we finally get the XM-L in our hands for use/testing. The flyer was wonderful at seeing what the thing will look like (finally), but more pictures, or higher quality pictures, will help a lot as well. 

-Tony

EDIT: I am sorry if I did not mention or give credit to the person that took the original picture that I used. Thank you, CPF member.


----------



## SmurfTacular

Holy cow!

That P7 is a beast compared to the rest


----------



## moviles

SmurfTacular said:


> Holy cow!
> 
> That P7 is a beast compared to the rest


the beast are the sst-90


----------



## moviles

the die size of the XM-L are 2mm x 2 mm (*4mm2*)

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/276322


----------



## saabluster

moviles said:


> the die size of the XM-L are 2mm x 2 mm (*4mm2*)
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/276322



That info was added to this this thread already.


----------



## eatkabab

So I'm a little new and was hoping someone could assist me with these LED's

I'm currently using XPG-R5's (driven at 850ma) in a lamp but I seem to need a little more efficiency (needs to be a bit brighter).

I see you guys talking about the new S2/S3's and also SSR-90's as well as other similar LED's. Can someone recommend an LED thats similar in size to the XPG but brighter?

From what I've read here, it seems as if the S2/S3's are 4mmX4mm? which would be on the upper limit of okay size.


----------



## Black Rose

You can drive an XP-G up to 1.4A.

Just swapping your drivers for ones that put out more amperage will give a lot more light with the XP-G.


----------



## eatkabab

Black Rose said:


> You can drive an XP-G up to 1.4A.
> 
> Just swapping your drivers for ones that put out more amperage will give a lot more light with the XP-G.



Yeah I know my driver is actually variable up to 1500ma but I can't run it higher than 900 really because the heat-sink isn't large enough and I cannot make it larger. The application is a very small lightweight headlight for medical use...

I need something a bit more efficient


----------



## znomit

eatkabab said:


> Yeah I know my driver is actually variable up to 1500ma but I can't run it higher than 900 really because the heat-sink isn't large enough and I cannot make it larger. The application is a very small lightweight headlight for medical use...
> 
> I need something a bit more efficient



Thats as efficient as it gets right now unless you can use more than one XPG. You might look at fine tuning your optics to see if you are wasting some light somewhere (you might want to start a separate thread and post more details).


----------



## Gryloc

eatkabob, 

I recommend that you create your own thread to ask these questions. These questions are out of topic here. You could receive much more attention and advice if you had your own thread. Good luck.

-Tony


----------



## Nil Einne

Any news on the XM-L? Like are samples out yet?


----------



## Curt R

There may be some info at the LED Show in Las Vegas this week on the 27 th at the Rio Hotel. Check back next week. :drunk:

Curt


----------



## ti-force

I would be extremely surprised if samples weren't already in the hands of the ones who are eligible to get them. The ones who have them aren't talking or that's my guess anyway.


----------



## SmurfTacular

Is there a rock solid release date for the public to get their hands on? :naughty:


----------



## saabluster

SmurfTacular said:


> Is there a rock solid release date for the public to get their hands on? :naughty:


No. Rarely is with this type of thing.


----------



## eprom

Found this, 

XM LED Demo

http://www.eagletac.com/news/news1.html


----------



## mds82

thats pretty sweet. Cant wait till these are actually available!


----------



## ti-force

Eprom,

Thanks for sharing :thumbsup:.

Has anyone else noticed that the XM-L being driven at 350mA has a white cap, while the XM-L being driven at 2A has a cap with a blue tint to it? I wonder why that is?


----------



## Tally-ho

ti-force said:


> Has anyone else noticed that the XM-L being driven at 350mA has a white cap, while the XM-L being driven at 2A has a cap with a blue tint to it? I wonder why that is?


Look at the table. White surface doesn't have the same color in the left corner and in the right corner. Those same colors affect domes tint like there was more blue tint in the right part of the picture. Maybe due to the light and/or JPEG compression. My 2 cts.


----------



## ti-force

Tally-ho said:


> Look at the table. White surface doesn't have the same color in the left corner and in the right corner. Those same colors affect domes tint like there was more blue tint in the right part of the picture. Maybe due to the light and/or JPEG compression. My 2 cts.



Look at the white XM label, the label is directly beside both domes and there isn't a drastic tint shift to blue on the M. Also, look at the second picture. Do you notice how much more blue the light is coming from the right dome? Not saying you're wrong. Just saying.


----------



## Nil Einne

From the lit image I think it's difficult to say, the one on the right is so much that it could easily be an illusion due to the differeing brightness, not helped probably by the camera's response to the oversaturation. The unlit one is somewhat suggestive particularly given the label but it is possible it's just because of the different angle and location


----------



## ti-force

I was just curious; I guess it doesn't really matter either way because as soon as these emitters become available they'll be snapped up like hotcakes and I hope to be one of the snappers . I just hope these emitters don't have a greenish tint. It seems like I've read some info on high efficiency emitters having a greenish tint for some reason, but I can't find a link to where I read that info, and it may not be correct info anyway.


----------



## Curt R

At 7 Watts as stated on the test rig and the current limit of 2 Amps that Cree has given at this point in time, 
the voltage drop across the LED is 3.5 volts. I would have thought that at 350 mA the voltage would be close 
to 2.8 volts, or slightly less than the XPG LED. A half volt + change is quite a bit, and any further power 
input will have to be done very carefully to avoid over current problems and thermal runaway. A good current 
limiting power circuit is going to be required for high output lights. Some of the cheaper circuits may not have 
the stability to handle maximum drive conditions. 

Curt


----------



## Tally-ho

ti-force said:


> Look at the the white XM label; the label is directly beside both domes, and there isn't a drastic tint shift to blue on the M.


Not a drastic tint shift to blue but *there is a tint shift* from left to right on the whole picture. 
The right part of the table and object on the table hadn't catch as much light than the left part. This slightly darker part (very slight shadow) appears more blue due to unappropriate white balance and jpeg compression.
This tint shift is more pronounced on each dome (than on flat surfaces) because of their own shadow.
Not more, not less. 
Don't panic, this LED will be great, bright and will come in many color temp flavours.


----------



## ti-force

Tally-ho said:


> Not a drastic tint shift to blue but *there is a tint shift* from left to right on the whole picture.
> The right part of the table and object on the table hadn't catch as much light than the left part. This slightly darker part (very slight shadow) appears more blue due to unappropriate white balance and jpeg compression.
> This tint shift is more pronounced on each dome (than on flat surfaces) because of their own shadow.
> Not more, not less.
> Don't panic, this LED will be great, bright and will come in many color temp flavours.



Please see the quote below, and don't worry because there's no panicking here; just stating what I see, and the "greenish tint" comment comes from the fact that some of the XP-G R5's have a puke green tint :green::



ti-force said:


> *I was just curious; I guess it doesn't really matter either way because as soon as these emitters become available they'll be snapped up like hotcakes, and I hope to be one of the snappers* . I just hope these emitters don't have a greenish tint. It seems like I've read some info on high efficiency emitters having a greenish tint for some reason, but I can't find a link to where I read that info, and it may not be correct info anyway.


----------



## Canuke

Curt R said:


> There may be some info at the LED Show in Las Vegas this week on the 27 th at the Rio Hotel. Check back next week. :drunk:
> 
> Curt



Aw man, I just read this today, THE 27TH. I live in Vegas, and would love to have checked it out.


----------



## jirik_cz

The pictures are really weird. The unlit dome on the right looks much bluer than the unlit dome on the left. ???


----------



## Gryloc

So, why not consider that the possible tint shift to the blue of the emitter on the right is due to the fact that the emitter is being driven at 7W, while soldered to a MCPCB board with an unknown heatsink beneath? It is a display piece with momentary buttons, so it is built to be run for very short periods of time and meant to "wow" the user. Driven at 7W, a small emitter could be heated pretty rapidly. I drove a neutral white XP-G that was soldered to a 20mm star MCPCB and pressed against a fairly large piece of aluminum (using AA paste between) at 2A and I noticed a obvious tint shift. I know that the XP-G has half the die area and the package is smaller, and the maxx current is 1.5A, but the XM-L is still a tiny emitter. The thermal resistance is lower, but the XM-L is not too much bigger, and it cannot be directly compared with a SST-50 or SST-90 (those are different beasts). 

So, consider that heat is causing the phosphors to function less efficiently at high drive currents due to a whole lot of unknowns: the overall thermal resistance of this display piece, the quality of phosphors on this sample XM-L, and then who knows how this camera used handles dramatic differences in brightness of two tiny light sources (the domes are not that big). I think that it will take more than one picture during operation to properly "judge" this emitter like we are now. When an emitter is driven at ~750 lumens with a small dome, it is more difficult to judge tint by directly looking at the source compared to the light cast on the wall, either directly, or with optics of some sort.


----------



## baterija

Probably also useful to remember as we look at possible heat or picture issues...

they are two different emitters. It could be as simple as different color temps in the samples used no matter what drive current is used.


----------



## znomit

jirik_cz said:


> The pictures are really weird. The unlit dome on the right looks much bluer than the unlit dome on the left. ???



Oh, please don't post such common sense observations. 

You're spoiling all the unfounded speculation on tint shifting/overheating/poor phosphor design.


----------



## Curt R

Some of the big hitters have the XM-L samples already, the rest of us will have to wait up to two more months to get them.

Curt


----------



## mds82

Hasnt anyone noticed already that the plastic covers of the XM-L sample are different colors ?????? Everyone is guessing that there is a huge color difference, but in reality it could be an illusion from the camera, and the plastic covers are different colors


----------



## ti-force

mds82 said:


> Hasnt anyone noticed already that the plastic covers of the XM-L sample are different colors ?????? Everyone is guessing that there is a huge color difference, but in reality it could be an illusion from the camera, and the plastic covers are different colors



Yes, I stated on the previous page that the domes appear to be two different colors, but it really doesn't matter either way, unless the photographer of that exact display is willing to comment or take another picture, no one has any evidence or proof to show that the pictured domes are or are not two different colors. It's something that I noticed, but it doesn't matter to me; I'm still buying some XM emitters.


----------



## vaska

Nichia responds.
I don't think the information is worth beginning a new thread, so just placing the link here.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

.....


----------



## MichaelW

If Cree sticks the xp-g's die in to the xm package, would that make an xm-c?

Wouldn't that decrease the apparent die size versus the xp package? Improving the throw/hot rod potential of the ez1400 die.


----------



## saabluster

vaska said:


> Nichia responds.
> I don't think the information is worth beginning a new thread, so just placing the link here.


Thank you for drawing our attention to this announcement but it would actually be better in its own thread. If you really wanted to put it in another thread with the idea that Nichia is responding to Cree a more apt thread would be this one where what is being discussed is also a lab result and not a commercial product as is being discussed in this thread.

It would be better if this conversation carried on there. спасибо


----------



## Jash

Curt R said:


> Some of the big hitters have the XM-L samples already, the rest of us will have to wait up to two more months to get them.
> 
> Curt



I was talking to someone a few weeks ago and they said Gene was mucking around with them then. Was specifically talking about the dorp-ins for maglites, but you know there will more than just that.


----------



## Bright_Light

Jash said:


> I was talking to someone a few weeks ago and they said Gene was mucking around with them then. Was specifically talking about the dorp-ins for maglites, but you know there will more than just that.


 
Excellent! Maybe Gene can get Don Mcleish to design him another reflector for the XM-L. It sure is a great time to be a flashaholic....


----------



## outersquare

from an total output/power aspect only it seems like this is only a modest improvement over say the SST90, which i think the spec sheet said 1K lumens at 3A. 

This is of course disregarding any cost or packaging improvements since the SST is a big expensive LED.


----------



## ti-force

*Edit*


----------



## FenixIlluminated

The XM LED Demo was a good submission to this thread, the 750 lumens is quite impressive! I'm new to flashlights, but with the new XM-L lights going to be the biggest difference that we have seen?

How do these compare to XP-G's ?
Sorry, this stuff does not seem so basic for just anyone to understand.


----------



## MichaelW

The xp-g can be extremely overdriven to about 500 lumens.
The xm-l might reach 1500 lumens.

So we should see another single die [monolith] emitter capable 1,000 lumens OTF (in addition to SST-90, SST-50)

Not necessary a game changer, but a 'next generation' mc-e.
Not a competitor to xp-g because of the larger die size, and package size.

Just eagerly anticipated evolution.


----------



## eyeeatingfish

Anyone know what the price is likely to be on this light? If it is a lot cheaper than the SST-50 it will be great news.


----------



## Techjunkie

Wild speculation... I'd guess $16-$18 each from the same places presently selling XP-G for ~$7 and MC-E for ~$14.


----------



## Corvette6769

eyeeatingfish said:


> Anyone know what the price is likely to be on this light? If it is a lot cheaper than the SST-50 it will be great news.


 
The more important question is, when is the Cree XM-L going to start showing up in production flashlights or drop-ins in quantity and who will be the first. 

Been waiting 6 months now. 

I am getting tired of all these under-driven Luminus SST-50 J-bin flashlights that put out less than MC-E M bin and hardly more than XP-G R5 from DX.


----------



## Techjunkie

Tell me about it... I've been stockpiling hosts and drivers and other parts ever since I heard about these. I've got 5 lights planned and all they're missing are these emitters.


----------



## arrrx

Cool! can't wait to have one piece on my flashlight.
But...how about the price...


----------



## jsr

I think a XM-L in neutral white in an EDC would be nice. It should offer a broad beam due to the large die size not being well focused in the standard reflector sizes. However, like how many are disappointed with the XP-G due to lack of throw, those same will probably be disappointed with the XM-L. The reflector would need to be both large diameter and deep to really focus it well, but if it is, it should throw very well. Only consequence would be the size increase in the light. For EDC, that's not really an option, so a broad wall of light it is, and should work well for EDC. Not sure how well the XM-L will work in other applications where larger lights typically (or used to) offer more throw. Hopefully the current standard prices for lights in each class don't go up a lot with the introduction of the XM-L.


----------



## moviles

how many time we must still wait for buy this leds in cutter or other dealers ?


----------



## Techjunkie

Would someone kindly post here in this thread when these are finally available as bare emitters or on stars from DigiKey or any other US dealer? (Or KD/DX if they beat them to the punch.) With my new job and crazy schedule, I don't get to frequent this forum as much as I used to and I don't want to miss the launch. Thanks!


----------



## ifor powell

We are getting close looks like pricing will be close to double and xg-g.


----------



## pepko

cree XM-L bin T6 ... only 910lm/3A ... I am not satisfied ...

:thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow


----------



## tstartrekdude

Where did you get that number from? and is that's all they are going to give us than yeah no kidding that's not satisfying :scowl: That workd out to the same serfice brightness as the old R2 xr-e's with the EZ1000 chip. i was hoping at lest that it would use the same quality die material as the EZ900 R2's(about 1100 lumens at 3 amps)...the new N bin mc-e's are the same efficiency as this as well, but this package is still better than the mc-e though so i guess i am still making my new light with a warm one once they come out.....I WANT MORE SERFICE BRIGHTNESS CREE, OBEY ME NOW AND DO MORE SCIENCE!!!:whoopin:

EDIT: *plays with mag 1185 and calms down*


----------



## pepko

tstartrekdude said:


> Where did you get that number from?



... from cutter's preliminary datasheet ...


----------



## Corvette6769

pepko said:


> cree XM-L bin T6 ... only 910lm/3A ... I am not satisfied ...
> 
> :thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow


My notes from 4-12-10 are that at 2 A, the XM-L LED produces 750 lumens at 110 lumens per watt. If all things are equal, I would anticipate that at 3 Amps it would be closer to 1125 lumens.


----------



## HumanLumen

The relationship with current is not linear.
Looking at the XRE curve and dividing the current of that curve by 4 (as that is the equiv current desity for 4mm2 cf 1mm2 for EZ1000), I would expect 1.75(for 750mA) div by 1.35 (for 500mA) x 750Lm (4 x 500mA) = 972 lumens, so I think we will be given a little more than 910Lm at 3.0amps offered here - its another R5 bin supprise.
HL


----------



## morelightnow

I'll be satisfied with 900 lumens. I like the fact that it could possibly replace my dual linger special and have a lower low since it will only be one led, plus the beam will look much better. I hope they make optics for it.


----------



## pepko

Corvette6769 said:


> My notes from 4-12-10 are that at 2 A, the XM-L LED produces 750 lumens at 110 lumens per watt. If all things are equal, I would anticipate that at 3 Amps it would be closer to 1125 lumens.



bin T6 ... 280-300lm/700mA ...

luminous flux:
700mA = 100% = 280lm
2000mA = 240% = 672lm
3000mA = 325% = 910lm


----------



## monkeyboy

I definitely remember the initial announcement of 750lm @ 2A

We need to wait for the final data sheet to be sure. No point trying to figure out exact numbers at this stage as it's just speculation.


----------



## pepko

monkeyboy said:


> I definitely remember the initial announcement of 750lm @ 2A
> 
> We need to wait for the final data sheet to be sure. No point trying to figure out exact numbers at this stage as it's just speculation.



speculation ????


----------



## MichaelW

*Gaussian distribution*

How do those bins works?
260-280 for the base, T5
280-300 for the T6
300-320 for the bin above T6 (T7?)


----------



## pepko

*Re: Gaussian distribution*



MichaelW said:


> How do those bins works?
> 300-320 for the bin above T6 (T7?)



U2
like S2 XP-G ... theoretic maximum ...


----------



## znomit

monkeyboy said:


> I definitely remember the initial announcement of 750lm @ 2A
> 
> We need to wait for the final data sheet to be sure. No point trying to figure out exact numbers at this stage as it's just speculation.



Remember the XPG... initial release with S2 bin in "limited" supply... seen in the wild but can you buy one today?


----------



## pepko

znomit said:


> seen in the wild but can you buy one today?



NOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Techjunkie

900 CREE lumens at 3A vs. Phatlight's not quite 1000 lumens at 5A, and from a smaller, more focusable die? yes please.

I can understand some disappointment over the 750L at 2A rating being dropped to _only_ 700L @ 2A, but still, it's nice to see the added headroom for overdriving to 900L @ 3A on the preliminary charts above. That's definitely a step above the SST-50 in my opinion. In fact, I'm already planning to swap the SST-50 from my modded SacredFire V-65C for a CREE XM-L.

Of course, now I'll have to change the sense resistors on the DX 20330 2.5A drivers I had planned to use in some Mag mods. :naughty:


----------



## Corvette6769

Techjunkie said:


> ....now I'll have to change the sense resistors on the DX 20330 2.5A drivers I had planned to use ..... :naughty:


 
My thought exactly, with all this talk about 3A, I was wondering what manufacturer was going to offer a single 18650 flashlight or drop-in that would drive the XM-L at 3A, since most everything out there today is driving the MC-E and SST-50 at only 2.5A.


----------



## saabluster

750lm at 2000ma seems to scale out about right for the top of the bin. Keep in mind the listed spec is a minimum not the typical or top of the bin so calculations should be done at [email protected] in order to see if they match the prior stated spec of [email protected] The graph may have been based on the lower bin which would have more droop as the power rises and therefore the higher bin will not scale dead on to that graph. 

Also keep in mind that 3A is probably not going to be the maximum drive level for too long. It will probably go up to 4.5-5A once their testing qualifies it at these drive levels. It is also interesting to note that in the original press release from earlier this year they said the XM-L had a thermal resistance of 2 degrees C per watt and the datasheet shows it at 2.5. That's a bummer for the overdriving crowd.


----------



## monkeyboy

pepko said:


> speculation ????



fair enough, but it is a preliminary data sheet. Also remember that those are the minimum specs for T6. 






znomit said:


> Remember the XPG... initial release with S2 bin in "limited" supply... seen in the wild but can you buy one today?



Well the S2 quark range has just been released.


----------



## ergotelis

saabluster said:


> 750lm at 2000ma seems to scale out about right for the top of the bin. Keep in mind the listed spec is a minimum not the typical or top of the bin so calculations should be done at [email protected] in order to see if they match the prior stated spec of [email protected] The graph may have been based on the lower bin which would have more droop as the power rises and therefore the higher bin will not scale dead on to that graph.
> 
> Also keep in mind that 3A is probably not going to be the maximum drive level for too long. It will probably go up to 4.5-5A once their testing qualifies it at these drive levels. It is also interesting to note that in the original press release from earlier this year they said the XM-L had a thermal resistance of 2 degrees C per watt and the datasheet shows it at 2.5. That's a bummer for the overdriving crowd.



I guess you have your own tests with the samples, are you allowed to speak about them?Thanks anyway!


----------



## pepko

monkeyboy said:


> Well the S2 quark range has just been released.



... after one year ...


----------



## HumanLumen

I don't expect the current to be increased beyond 3 amps, as the XPG (which is half the size - correct?) was only scaled up to 1.5A. All speculation of course!
HL


----------



## ergotelis

HumanLumen said:


> I don't expect the current to be increased beyond 3 amps, as the XPG (which is half the size - correct?) was only scaled up to 1.5A. All speculation of course!
> HL



exactly, that is just a speculation, if you check out the thermal resistance, in XM-L is much much better, so we can't compare these two products in that way.


----------



## Curt R

c
Corvette 6769:




Corvette6769 said:


> My thought exactly, with all this talk about 3A, I was wondering what manufacturer was going to offer
> a single 18650 flashlight or drop-in that would drive the XM-L at 3A, since most everything out there
> today is driving the MC-E and SST-50 at only 2.5A.



Peak drives the FR1000 using the Seoul P7 at 3.4 amps, however that requires more battery than a single 18650. 
Two 18350 will work for a short period of time, but for that amount of drive, two 18650 batteries or four CR123A 
batteries are required. The state of the art in batteries at this time is not up to the requirements that we would 
like to see. Even using two 18650 batteries in the FR1000 or the FR1200 driving the SST-50 at 5.1 Amps, 
the batteries get very warm. The Peak SR1500, SR2400, and the SR6000 will all use the 'M' cell, (38120), 
Iron phosphate Lithium-Ion batteries for power or a remote SLA battery. 

As far as driving the XM-L at over 3 Amps, that will be a technical challenge as to the thermal problems 
associated with 10 watts plus of power, concentrated in what proports to be a point source given the surface 
area of the LED's heat pad. Driving the LED on a test bench is not the same as inside a flashlight head and 
the thermal path to the surface of the light. Ideally we would like 80 square inches of surface area to dissipate
8 watts of heat energy when driving the LED with 10 watts of power. In a Luminare fixture that is not a 
problem as to thermal radiation dispersal. We work, design and live under a different set of rules.

Curt


----------



## Notsure Fire

All I know is that I'm upgrading soon!


----------



## Corvette6769

Since we are limited to 2.5 A to 2.8A with a single 18650 (and since anything bigger is not practical for every day carry), I believe the key to greater output will be more efficient, higher output LEDs such as the Cree XP-G S2-bin providing up to 400 lumens at 1A - http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1254314703656 (493-520 lm @ 1.5A) , Cree MC-E O-bin (980-1103 lm @ 2.8A), Luminus SST-50 K-bin (1410-1645 lm @ 5A), XM-L T6 or T7 ...


----------



## ergotelis

Corvette6769 said:


> Since we are limited to 2.5 A to 2.8A with a single 18650 (and since anything bigger is not practical for every day carry), I believe the key to greater output will be more efficient, higher output LEDs such as the Cree XP-G S2-bin providing up to 400 lumens at 1A - http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1254314703656 (493-520 lm @ 1.5A) , Cree MC-E O-bin (980-1103 lm @ 2.8A), Luminus SST-50 K-bin (1410-1645 lm @ 5A), XM-L T6 or T7 ...



Except S2 bin of xp-g and XM-L T7, i don't think that all the rest that you mention will ever exist.


----------



## -Gast-

this one goes into my Mag when available in WW...
Will give a quite nice spill i guess...


----------



## longleg

Anyone know if the xm-l die size is smaller than mc-e? 

Using boom-ss reflectors I'm hoping that xm-l will throw a little bit better than mc-e...


----------



## monkeyboy

longleg said:


> Anyone know if the xm-l die size is smaller than mc-e?



According to the discussion it's 2x2mm (4mm^2) so the same size as the MC-E but without the gaps.


----------



## longleg

In that case - XM-L should give pretty much the same beam pattern as the MC-E with the same optics? Without the cross in the middle of course.


----------



## DarkoMaledictus

Any word yet if it will be possible to have a p60 dropping made with 3 xm-L leds. Just got my oveready triple xp-g and already burning for something even more powerful...its official I'm sick !


----------



## SmurfTacular

Does anyone know the exact area of the emitting surface? Because at 750lm this thing will go great in a aspheric Mag.


----------



## HumanLumen

The dispersion pattern is too wide for an aspheric, unless of course you are using pre-colimators etc.
HL


----------



## Notsure Fire

I think coliminator or whatever lenses are more efficient anyway.


----------



## SmurfTacular

When you say dispersion pattern, are you referring to the angle of light that is emitted? I can see why that would be a problem, how would a coliminator fix that?


----------



## monkeyboy

longleg said:


> In that case - XM-L should give pretty much the same beam pattern as the MC-E with the same optics? Without the cross in the middle of course.



I'm guessing it won't be the same. The XM-L comes in different packaging with a different primary optic, also the lack of a cross in the middle should should significantly improve the throw.


----------



## LEDninja

SmurfTacular said:


> When you say dispersion pattern, are you referring to the angle of light that is emitted? I can see why that would be a problem, how would a coliminator fix that?


An aspheric is usually a lens some distance away from the LED. All the side going light hits the side of the head and is lost.
A collimator is shaped like a reflector. Sideways going light is reflected forward by Total Internal Reflection just like in a prism in the old style binoculars. The difference between a collimator and a reflector is that there is a lens at the bottom of the lump of plastic or glass which captures the light that misses the sides and shoots it forward and fills the donut hole. So you get a solid beam of light, very little spill, and no donut hole.


----------



## Corvette6769

*This is Google's cache of **https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/270517&page=8**. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Feb 26, 2011 16:48:33 GMT (THIS WAS PAGE 8 OF 9)*

B]Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA[/B]
Written by *jellydonut* on 11-10-2010 03:54 PM GMT


whosywhat said:


> I'm comparing a single XM-L to a triple XP-G. It sounds like the XM-L will be much cheaper, but from the data sheet, but it doesn't seem to offer more output or better efficiency.
> Can someone check my calculations?
> *XM-L (T6)*
> Output @ 700ma: 280lm
> Output @ 3A: (325% of 280lm) = 910lm
> Vf @ 3A = 3.35
> Power @ 3A = 10W
> 910lm @ 10W
> *Triple XP-G R5*
> 1100lm @ 10W
> and... you can go to 1450lm @ 15W.
> I know the XM-L has much better thermal resistance (2.5 vs 6) which is probably a big deal, but I don't have a good idea about what those numbers mean.


The lower you drive an LED the more efficient it is. It then follows that the more LEDs you have running the more efficient the complete setup will be. The lower you drive an LED the more efficient it is. It then follows that the more LEDs you have running the more efficient the complete setup will be.
However, a single, single-die LED cannot be compared to a triple-LED setup unless all you want is flood. The XM-L in a smooth reflector is going to stomp on a triple XP-G setup, completely different use case.


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *DarkoMaledictus* on 11-10-2010 04:22 PM GMT


jellydonut said:


> The lower you drive an LED the more efficient it is. It then follows that the more LEDs you have running the more efficient the complete setup will be.
> However, a single, single-die LED cannot be compared to a triple-LED setup unless all you want is flood. The XM-L in a smooth reflector is going to stomp on a triple XP-G setup, completely different use case.


Flood is a very nice thing to have in the woods. I have both a triple xpg and a sst-50 p60 droppins and they both function very well for their intended uses. But a triple xm-l p60 droppins would be a dream come true... but at 5x5 it might be a bit too big for that application Flood is a very nice thing to have in the woods. I have both a triple xpg and a sst-50 p60 droppins and they both function very well for their intended uses. But a triple xm-l p60 droppins would be a dream come true... but at 5x5 it might be a bit too big for that application !


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *MichaelW* on 11-10-2010 05:32 PM GMT
I hope that Cree gets warm-white & neutral-white out quickly.
T5 warm
T6 neutral
U2 cool
everyone wins!
So when does the ez1400 die show up in the xm-l package?


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *RedmEx* on 11-11-2010 01:22 AM GMT


whosywhat said:


> I'm comparing a single XM-L to a triple XP-G. It sounds like the XM-L will be much cheaper, but from the data sheet, but it doesn't seem to offer more output or better efficiency.
> Can someone check my calculations?...


Well, as Well, as stated here earlier[/url], you should compare similar die sizes, so as the XM-L are is expected to be twice the XP-G, the fair comparison would be a double XM-L to a quad XP-G.
Go ahead an recalculate, so you'll find out the lumens and prices won't be to much of a difference, so secondary influences like electronics (drivers) and optics come into play ...
RedmEx


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *longleg* on 11-11-2010 01:22 AM GMT


Pliauga said:


> At least there are no reflectors for the XM-Ls out yet, then I would surely be


If the die size is the same as MC-E, why not use e.g. Boom reflectors? I at least plan to test it. If the die size is the same as MC-E, why not use e.g. Boom reflectors? I at least plan to test it.
If XM-L + Boom SS only gives a little better throw than MC-E with Boom SS, then I'm sold. 
Then you can keep a 20mm dia size of the light, and not having to go up to e.g. the Fraen 35m reflector to get decent throw.


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *matthewm* on 11-11-2010 03:14 AM GMT
Something special is in the works. Attached is photos of a single CREE XM-L (low bin) and a four 'undisclosed' optics
Tight = ±4
http://img811.imageshack.us/i/tightp.jpg/


Medium2= ±10
http://img824.imageshack.us/i/tightk.jpg/


Medium = ±12
http://img543.imageshack.us/i/mediumk.jpg/


Wide = ±18
http://img834.imageshack.us/i/widey.jpg/



*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *znomit* on 11-11-2010 03:19 AM GMT


matthewm said:


> Something special is in the works. Attached is photos of a single CREE XM-L (low bin) and a three 'undisclosed' optics
> Tight= ±10
> Medium = ±12
> Wide = ±18


Since when is tight 20 degrees? Since when is tight 20 degrees?


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *matthewm* on 11-11-2010 06:52 AM GMT


znomit said:


> Since when is tight 20 degrees?


Fixed. Mixed up the order. Fixed. Mixed up the order.


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *uk_caver* on 11-11-2010 07:04 AM GMT
It's kind-of hard to judge beamshots without a basis for comparison, or a scale+distance.
Still, I guess that once the optics *are* disclosed, we can look at datasheets and make comparisons with other LEDs/optics from the figures and graphs there?


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *stu929* on 11-18-2010 04:33 PM GMT
What driver would you use to power this? I am a noob to modding but I want to get my hand on one of there and make a 2*18650 3 mode if I can find an appropriate driver. Would a P7/MCE driver supply to needed 2500~3000ma or am I looking in the wrong direction?
Thanks


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *saabluster* on 11-18-2010 09:16 PM GMT


stu929 said:


> What driver would you use to power this? I am a noob to modding but I want to get my hand on one of there and make a 2*18650 3 mode if I can find an appropriate driver. Would a P7/MCE driver supply to needed 2500~3000ma or am I looking in the wrong direction?
> Thanks


Yes a P7/MC-E driver would be perfect. Yes a P7/MC-E driver would be perfect.


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *Vinz* on 11-22-2010 07:08 AM GMT
Here are some measurements of the XM-L T6-1D, taken by an ulbricht-sphere:





I found it on taobao.com, seller of the auction is 2a524, if I'm right.
Regards, 
Vinz


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *Curt R* on 11-22-2010 07:00 PM GMT
That output information from Vinz fits the output graph that I made for the XM-L LED.
At 350 mA 145L, 1000mA 385L, 1500mA 540L, 2000mA 680L, 3000mA 910L, 3600mA 1050L for the T6 bin.
The T5 bin at 350mA 140L, 1000mA 350L, 1500mA 500L, 2000mA 630L, 3000mA 840L and at 3600mA 940L. 
For the XP-G R5 we have at 350mA 140L, 1000mA 345L and at 1500mA 460L. 
It would be hard to justify using the XM-L at under 1000mA of LED drive current for a 10% output increase 
with the T6 over the XP-G R5. 
That initial 160 Lumens per watt seems to have disappeared. 
Curt


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *JamisonM* on 11-22-2010 08:25 PM GMT
These seem like an upgraded XP-G. Slightly larger and able to run on twice the current.

*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *romteb* on 11-22-2010 08:27 PM GMT


Curt R said:


> That initial 160 Lumens per watt seems to have disappeared.
> Curt


The U2 bin isn't available yet. The U2 bin isn't available yet.


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *imonlylumen* on 11-22-2010 08:45 PM GMT
So are there any optics or Multi XML mcpcb's out yet

*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *znomit* on 11-22-2010 11:00 PM GMT


imonlylumen said:


> So are there any optics or Multi XML mcpcb's out yet


http://www.ledil.com/index.php?page=xm-l[/url]
The EVA and the Iris look like the MCE optics.


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *RedmEx* on 11-23-2010 12:58 AM GMT


Curt R said:


> ...
> The T5 bin at 350mA 140L, 1000mA 350L, 1500mA 500L, 2000mA 630L, 3000mA 840L and at 3600mA 940L.
> For the XP-G R5 we have at 350mA 140L, 1000mA 345L and at 1500mA 460L.
> It would be hard to justify using the XM-L at under 1000mA of LED drive current for a 10% output increase with the T6 over the XP-G R5.
> ...
> Curt


Hi Curt, maybe the gain in efficacy is mainly due to the lowered Vf. Could you please tell us input powers for your measurements ? Hi Curt, maybe the gain in efficacy is mainly due to the lowered Vf. Could you please tell us input powers for your measurements ?
RedmEx


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *ergotelis* on 11-23-2010 02:38 AM GMT
Well i have to say that something is wrong with the data supplied. In all 0,5amp measurements you get a very good increase in output. Except the last one. Extra 0,5amp for 30 lumen only!Is this logical?I don't think!It might be in fact 985 lumen and not 885!
Also, the vf is very high i think.
Saablaster, please can we have your opinion on that graph and any answer on my questions?Thanks!


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *Vinz* on 11-23-2010 07:40 AM GMT
I think that's just an error. 985 lumen at 3A seems correctly.*168,8* Lumen increase
*155,7 *...
*143 *...
*130 *[email protected] 985 Lumen
On the other side it's over the specs.


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *txg* on 11-23-2010 09:18 AM GMT
the numbers so far don't look as good as expected. but what about higher drive currents? if you look at the output increase from 2.5 to 3 amps or 3 amps to 3.6 amps, it seems like the led is far away from leveling of at these currents. can someone test the led at 4.5 to 5 amps?
with good cooling these currents should be no problem, Vf at 5A shouldn't be higher than 4V, so the led will run at 20W which equals to an increase of die temp of 50°C with a thermal resistance of 2,5°C/w.


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *Curt R* on 11-23-2010 10:15 AM GMT
At 2.5 Amps the output should be about 800 Lumens and not 855 as indicated. At the higher drives the LED is
starting to fade faster in output due to the small thermal support area of the LED. In actual practice we will not see 
1000 Lumens at 3.6 Amps and probably a decline at 5 Amps. There is a difference in bench testing and the real 
world applications.
At 160 Lumens with a drive current of 350 mA, I think that the bin would have to be U4 and not U2. 150 Lumens seems 
more reasonable. We will have to wait and see for more testing to be done, it is still to early for concrete results.
Curt


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *recDNA* on 12-08-2010 10:08 AM GMT


JamisonM said:


> These seem like an upgraded XP-G. Slightly larger and able to run on twice the current.


I hate that it's larger though. I'd like to see Cree go back to .9 mm size and make THAT more efficient! I wonder if anyone will ever make any smaller led's? I hate that it's larger though. I'd like to see Cree go back to .9 mm size and make THAT more efficient! I wonder if anyone will ever make any smaller led's?


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *shao.fu.tzer* on 12-08-2010 10:46 AM GMT
Maybe I missed it, but does anyone have an XM-L lying around that they can measure the dome on for me? Or does anyone have any info on what size the dome is? I want to play with these LEDs and TIR optics.
Thanks,
Shao


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *taschenlampe* on 12-08-2010 11:09 AM GMT
According to page 8 of the XM-L Data Sheet[/url] I would guess the dome is 4,5mm wide.
tl

*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *shao.fu.tzer* on 12-09-2010 09:14 AM GMT


taschenlampe said:


> According to page 8 of the XM-L Data Sheet[/url] I would guess the dome is 4,5mm wide.
> tl


Hey thanks for that... I'm a dummy... Hey thanks for that... I'm a dummy...


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *Helmut.G* on 12-09-2010 09:31 AM GMT


recDNA said:


> I hate that it's larger though. I'd like to see Cree go back to .9 mm size and make THAT more efficient! I wonder if anyone will ever make any smaller led's?


I think I've read of a new light claiming to use a XP-E R3 recently. Can't remember any details however, maybe it was just a dream I think I've read of a new light claiming to use a XP-E R3 recently. Can't remember any details however, maybe it was just a dream :tired:

*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *uk_caver* on 12-09-2010 09:39 AM GMT
There are the high efficiency XP-Es, which do seem to potentially get up to R4
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...igh-Efficiency[/url]
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?270517-Cree-does-it-again-160-lumens-per-watt-350-mA&p=3620893#post3620893


*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *Helmut.G* on 12-09-2010 09:44 AM GMT
your link takes me back to my above post, was that your intention?

*Re: Cree does it again-160 lumens per watt @350 mA*
Written by *uk_caver* on 12-09-2010 09:58 AM GMT
Corrected.


----------

