# The new XP-G: another big announcement from CREE



## YuccaPatrol

Yesterday it was the multi-colored MC-E, and now they announce another big development:

Cree Announces Industry's Brightest and Highest-Efficiency Lighting-Class LED


----------



## carrot

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

Cree really needs to stop this. Lumileds will never catch up at this rate! (Heh, heh.)


----------



## monkeyboy

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

Excellent news.

It looks like they're going with the "XP" package though. The higher drive level of the XP-G (1A) over the XP-E (700mA) must be a direct consequence of the greater efficacy and therefore less heat production.

I wonder if there is also an XR-G on the way capable of even higher drive levels stiill? (XP-E max I = 700mA whereas XR-E max I = 1000mA). No doubt that these new dice will also work their way into the MC-E at a later date.


----------



## JohnR66

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

I can't wait to see this show up in flashlights! My current collection with XR-Es seems obsolete now :shakehead My 80 l/w P4 light's seemed like great stuff a couple years ago.


----------



## DM51

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

It says it's "cool white", which may be a polite way of saying it's quite strong on blue. Presumably they'll come out with warmer tints in due course, but will they be as efficient?


----------



## MichaelW

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

Inova now can make an Inforce color model with a single diode. (except infrared)
Ooops: that pertains to the multi-color RGBw die


Xp-g is how to get a 1,000 lumen (OTF) 4 die lamp, say if the new EagleTac M2X is upgraded to 4 dies instead of 3.


----------



## matrixshaman

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

Ooooh! A single die LED with 345 lumens at 1A! I'll take it !


----------



## Curt R

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

"This press release contains forward-looking statements involving risks and uncertainties, both known and unknown, that may cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated. Actual results may differ materially due to a number of factors, including the risk we may encounter delays or other difficulties in ramping up production of our new sample products, which are currently available for evaluation and testing purposes only; the risk we may be unable to develop and release commercial products with performance ratings comparable to the development results described above; the risk we may be unable to manufacture products with sufficiently low cost to offer them at competitive prices or with acceptable margins; the potential lack of customer acceptance of LED products; the rapid development of new technology and competing products that may impair demand or render Cree's products obsolete; and other factors discussed in Cree's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 29, 2008, and subsequent filings."

We have seen this type of announcement from the LED manufacturers before. Lab made LEDs and production units are two different entities. I was told in January of 2008 that by the end of that year the Lumileds K2 would be at 300 Lumens.

So just sit back and .

Curt


----------



## adirondackdestroyer

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

Holy crap! I hope these things come out this year and are just as billed.


----------



## YuccaPatrol

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

Nice to see that my CREE stock has gone up another 5% after this announcement. . . . . :thumbsup:

But sadly, its the only thing that has gone up this year. . . .


----------



## Blindasabat

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

That works out to a 3.0 Vf. Not bad. And over 100L/W at 1Amp could make these the next killer drop-in to get massive throw. 


> The cool white XLamp XP-G provides 139 lumens and 132 lumens per Watt at 350 mA. Driven at 1 A, the XP-G produces 345 lumens, which is 37 percent brighter and 53 percent more efficient than the brightest XR-E LED.


----------



## MichaelW

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

So new flashlight for: Halloween, Turkey day, or x-mas?
or just new flashlights for a new year?


I will only accept 1,000 lumen* [capable] flashlights in the year 2010


----------



## ANDREAS FERRARI

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



Blindasabat said:


> ... over 100L/W at 1Amp could make these the next killer drop-in to get massive throw.



I wonder how long we will have to wait for companies light Dereelight to get a hold of these and offer drop-ins for their throwers?


----------



## Blindasabat

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

I think you will have to get a triple XP-G or next higher bins of MC-E & P7 for 1000 Lumens.


MichaelW said:


> I will only accept 1,000 lumen* [capable] flashlights in the year 2010


----------



## spencer

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

Over 110 lm/watt at 1A. I'm excited and impressed. I hope this scales accordingly to the neutral and warm white versions.


----------



## nzbazza

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

The cool white XLamp XP-G provides 139 lumens and 132 lumens per Watt at 350 mA. Driven at 1 A, the XP-G produces 345 lumens, which is 37 percent brighter and 53 percent more efficient than the brightest XR-E LED.

From the XPE binning datasheet, the scale stops at R3 bins.

R2 bin min 114lm max 122lm
R3 bin min 122lm mac 130lm

Now I'm guessing...
R4 min 130lm max 138lm
R5 min 138lm max 147lm

*An R5 binned LED!!!*  

Now to wait until these hit the market


----------



## Marduke

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

This means the warm white version will most likely be at least or more efficient than the best currently available if the improvement was in the die and not the phosphor.


----------



## jzmtl

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

Ah crap, that means all my lights will soon be outdated.


----------



## jhc37013

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

I'm all about more lumens but I would like to see an increase in technology for runtimes myself.


----------



## Benson

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



jhc37013 said:


> I'm all about more lumens but I would like to see an increase in technology for runtimes myself.


But it's pretty much the same thing -- advances in per-die output always mean either more lm/W or more total power, which means better thermal path, so it can run cooler (= more efficient) at the same output. Even multi-die emitters, as technologically boring as they are, mean you can run each die at a fraction of the output for the same total output at less power.

In this case, it's specifically spelled out that it's an increase in lm/W, and I'm not sure what sort of advancement you're thinking will boost runtimes any more directly than that.


----------



## csshih

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

ya know.. I'm wondering when there will be regulations as to how bright a flashlight can be?

some people are going to be shining em at airplanes and the such.... and a uber thrower would probably hit them well...


----------



## saabluster

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



DM51 said:


> It says it's "cool white", which may be a polite way of saying it's quite strong on blue. Presumably they'll come out with warmer tints in due course, but will they be as efficient?


It would be no different than anything they produce know. Remember that for a while the only R2 binned Crees that could be found were the WH bin which is the warmest of the cool white so don't assume that this new one is only able to achieve these numbers by being blue.



Curt R said:


> We have seen this type of announcement from the LED manufacturers before. Lab made LEDs and production units are two different entities. I was told in January of 2008 that by the end of that year the Lumileds K2 would be at 300 Lumens.
> 
> So just sit back and .
> 
> Curt



Lumileds and Cree have two very different philosophies when it comes to press releases. Cree tells the truth as they know it and Lumileds tells you what you want to hear. 





jhc37013 said:


> I'm all about more lumens but I would like to see an increase in technology for runtimes myself.


Then I think you will be happy with this new LED. There isn't a more efficient LED around. The reason it is putting out so many lumens is _because_ it is so efficient. I would not be surprised to see efficiencies approaching 200lm/W at low drive levels.


----------



## saabluster

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

Curt, in furtherance to my point about how Cree does business I would like to direct you to this press release. "*SEPTEMBER 7, 2007* — Cree, ... today announced it has demonstrated light output of more than 1,000 lumens ... from a single R&D LED. Historically, Cree’s R&D demonstrations generally have been commercialized within *12 to 24 months.*"

What we have in this new XP-G is the chip that was referred to in that press release. This is a larger chip than the XR-E and once it is applied to the XR package it will be capable of reaching 1000lm. Cree is right on schedule as usual. Expect another press release in the not too distant future about an XR-G.


----------



## ANDREAS FERRARI

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



saabluster said:


> ....once it is applied to the XR package it will be capable of reaching 1000lm. Cree is right on schedule as usual. Expect another press release in the not too distant future about an XR-G.



So if I understand correctly-this time next year-you might be offering a DEFT with over 1000lm!!! Sign me up!!!


----------



## saabluster

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



ANDREAS FERRARI said:


> So if I understand correctly-this time next year-you might be offering a DEFT with over 1000lm!!! Sign me up!!!


It won't take a year.


----------



## Burgess

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

Wow !


Certainly are Great Times to be a Flashaholic.








However, consider this . . . .


*9 months ago*, i received *my* first production flashlight 
to contain an R2 bin emitter. (LiteFlux LF5XT)

:thumbsup:




But . . . .



Today, 9 months later, that same R2 bin is considered to be
"too difficult to obtain", so LiteFlux has gone back to using Q5's.

:huh2:



See what i'm getting at ?







Still, i'm *very interested* in this announcement.




_


----------



## saabluster

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



Burgess said:


> Today, 9 months later, that same R2 bin is considered to be
> "too difficult to obtain", so LiteFlux has gone back to using Q5's.
> 
> 
> _


That is just an excuse so they can go back to using the cheaper Q5s. R2s are plentiful and easy to get.


----------



## jirik_cz

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

I've took an XP-G picture and compared it with XR-E shot. The picture pretty well demonstrates that new XP-G uses a different (probably bigger) die.

Can't wait for XR-G and MC-G :naughty:


----------



## znomit

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

This is good stuff.
The XR-E at 1A puts out 2.2x the 350mA lumens.
This guy puts out 2.5x
Thats half the droop eliminated. :twothumbs


----------



## Mr_Light

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

If this is going to be the main discussion thread for the XP-G I was wondering if someone could add "XP-G" to the title so we could easily differentiate this from the four color die announcement and any others that come down the pike.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



jirik_cz said:


> I've took an XP-G picture and compared it with XR-E shot. The picture pretty well demonstrates that new XP-G uses a different (probably bigger) die.



Pardon my ignorance, but: on the die, what is each one of those yellow sections called?


----------



## saabluster

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



LEDAdd1ct said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but: on the die, what is each one of those yellow sections called?


Those are not separate sections. It is all part of the LED chip. The lines you see that make the "sections" are the current spreaders made of gold.


----------



## DM51

Mr_Light said:


> If this is going to be the main discussion thread for the XP-G I was wondering if someone could add "XP-G" to the title so we could easily differentiate this from the four color die announcement and any others that come down the pike.


Done


----------



## Aircraft800

Cree Inc. said:


> Cree is currently taking sample requests for the XLamp XP-G and targets the product to be commercially available the third quarter of calendar 2009.


 
I like this one, I'll bet *saabluster* already has his request in! (you know I do )


----------



## Daekar

Has anybody done any work with XP-E emitters? If these are similar... how hard will these things be to solder? I'm not talking reflow soldering, I mean just hand-soldering. Is it even possible at all? Even with a lot of patience?


----------



## phantom23

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



Blindasabat said:


> That works out to a 3.0 Vf. Not bad. And over 100L/W at 1Amp could make these the next killer drop-in to get *massive throw*.



You won't get massive throw because it has bigger die and wide beam angle. Definitely won't throw well...


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

what if you sliced that silicone dome flat? smaller apparent die size, probably smaller than an xp-e's apparent die size. might get rings in the output or something, though.

and the xp-e package is easy to solder on small stars, but on bigger stars you need something better than the dinky 25W radiohut soldering iron that I use

I can't wait for these to come out. the picture of the xp-g on cree's site looks weird, like, 10 rows of current spreaders?

(btw, I surface-mounted xr-e's on 15mm rounds and xp-e's on 8mm rounds mcpcbs with just my radioshanty 25W iron. the 15mm is a stretch, and I'd recommend a higher wattage iron for anything bigger than 10mm so that you don't overheat anything)

edit:
I crudely created this photo (thanks jirik_CZ for the only top view of the xp-g I could find) mspaint:


----------



## Corvette6769

Cree XLamp XP-G LED (139 lumens per Watt at 350 mA - Driven at 1 A, the XP-G produces 345 lumens, which is 37 percent brighter and 53 percent more efficient than the brightest XR-E LED)

Anyone happen to know the lumens per Watt @ 350 mA and @ 1 A specifications of the Cree Premium Q5 and Cree Premium R2?


----------



## saabluster

bshanahan14rulz said:


> what if you sliced that silicone dome flat? smaller apparent die size, probably smaller than an xp-e's apparent die size. might get rings in the output or something, though.



Been there done that. It severely reduces the output. Not worth the effort.


----------



## saabluster

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



phantom23 said:


> You won't get massive throw because it has bigger die and wide beam angle. Definitely won't throw well...



Don't worry. It will throw just fine. Just got to pump up the drive currents.


----------



## Curt R

Cree is more than likely doing the same thing as the new Seoul Z1 LED. The Z1 has eight independent fingers on their die, each one is a LED. The performance increase is due to the greater edge surface area where the majority of the light is emitted. The K2 has laser drilled holes to do the same thing. The Cree 1000 series die has three internal fingers plus a border to increase edge surface area. It is a single LED on the die whereas the Z1 is eight LEDs on a single die.

Curt


----------



## Blindasabat

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

At the time we thought it was XP-E sized. so compared to XR-E it would have been... But apparantly it is not, so bummers.


phantom23 said:


> You won't get massive throw because it has bigger die and wide beam angle. Definitely won't throw well...


----------



## saabluster

Curt R said:


> Cree is more than likely doing the same thing as the new Seoul Z1 LED. The Z1 has eight independent fingers on their die, each one is a LED. The performance increase is due to the greater edge surface area where the majority of the light is emitted. The K2 has laser drilled holes to do the same thing. The Cree 1000 series die has three internal fingers plus a border to increase edge surface area. It is a single LED on the die whereas the Z1 is eight LEDs on a single die.
> 
> Curt


No offense but it seems you think you know more about LEDs than you do. The new XP-G is nothing like the SSC Z1.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic

"Cool white" (= blue as hell), no thanks.


----------



## jirik_cz

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> "Cool white" (= blue as hell), no thanks.



Have you ever tried LED with tint around 5000K? They are still called a cool white, but they are not definitelly "blue as hell". Moreover I'm pretty sure that XP-G will be available in the neutral and warm white tints too...


----------



## saabluster

Aircraft800 said:


> I like this one, I'll bet *saabluster* already has his request in! (you know I do )


----------



## spencer

What do you guys think the reflector/optic compatibility will be with this? Will they work with existing XP-C/E reflectors or not because the die is bigger? Or do you suspect they will work with something existing for another LED? Maybe the XR-C/E (similar apparent die size?) optics? Or a whole new line of reflectors/optics?


----------



## saabluster

spencer said:


> What do you guys think the reflector/optic compatibility will be with this? Will they work with existing XP-C/E reflectors or not because the die is bigger? Or do you suspect they will work with something existing for another LED? Maybe the XR-C/E (similar apparent die size?) optics? Or a whole new line of reflectors/optics?


It will work fine in the existing reflectors/optics. The beam will be slightly broader but other than that no change.


----------



## Curt R

Saabuster: 

I have not had the time to research the latest Cree LED to know how they are doing the design. What I suggested would be logical approach. 

Curt


----------



## spencer

saabluster said:


> It will work fine in the existing reflectors/optics. The beam will be slightly broader but other than that no change.


So for example this reflector is +/-2.5 degrees. How much broader do you think it will be? +/-3 degrees? Or more?


----------



## LEDAdd1ct

*sniff sniff*

Do I smell a 5A Q5 or even a 5A R2...?


----------



## znomit

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



phantom23 said:


> You won't get massive throw because it has bigger die and wide beam angle. Definitely won't throw well...



Its over 60% more lumens than the xp-e (345 vs 210lm). 
Im guessing wider and brighter!


----------



## FlashlightPhreak

I guess the sky is the limit ! (literally)


----------



## spencer

LEDAdd1ct said:


> *sniff sniff*
> 
> Do I smell a 5A Q5 or even a 5A R2...?


You smell something more like 5A S3 or maybe even into the T's.


----------



## Flashlight Aficionado

I am new to LED terminology and how it relates to the real world. I understand they use 1 amp as a control to compare to other LEDs.

Where can I read up on how to translate these things?

What is the full lumens at its highest amp?


----------



## Marduke

In the XP package, I suspect 1A is the absolute maximum safe current already. If I had to further hypothesize, 1A is only feasible because of the presumably low Vf compared to the current XP-E, which maxes out at a safe current of 700mA. The current can be higher because the total power consumed is similar due to the lower voltage.


----------



## AardvarkSagus

One curiosity, has anyone any actual measurements of the die size? I know there are the pictures and the observed sizes, but does anyone have officially released news on it? I am betting that because of the extremely slight size of the XP-series LEDs, this light is still going to throw quite nicely. The XP-E has the same size die as the XR-E and yet the XP-E throws better, I believe...


----------



## Marduke

You can quickly measure it from this image

http://www.ledmania.cz/sites/default/files/images/clanky/XP-G-vs-XR-E.jpg


----------



## AardvarkSagus

My only question there however is, how much does the magnification of the two differently shaped domes affect the apparent size of the die? Could it be enough to skew the measurements? Is the only difference the number of current spreaders? I am just curious, I would like to know even if the actual die size is a whopping fraction of a mm larger in both directions, how much is that _really_ going to affect throw with a stock reflector like the ones used in the EagleTac P100 series?


----------



## Marduke

Measuring from the corners of the die (not the centers of the sides) will minimize the distortion effects and give a reasonable estimate.


----------



## HumanLumen

I don't think that the die is much bigger than the XR-E; if for example, the die was 11% bigger in both axis, the surface luminance per unit area would be no better than an R2 bin, i.e 1.11 x 1.11 x 114 lumens = 140.46 lumens. Thus a notably larger die would be a backwards step if it were giving out 139 lumens only.

Cheers
HL


----------



## jirik_cz

Is anyone going to the Lightfair in New York, May 3-7? According to the press release, Cree should show XP-G there...


----------



## TexLite

The apparent die size will be a factor when it comes to "throw". Even if the die size is the same size between the XR-E and XP-G, the primary optic on the XP-G looks like its going to magnify the die which will result in a larger apparent die size, and that will be a large contributor in determining how well it throws compared with the other Cree emitters.

Regardless, this looks like its going to be a fantastic emitter. It will work much better in existing optics and reflectors compared to the XR-E, which is already the best compromise in a single die emitter available today. 

The XR-E has the best compromise between output/color temp,thermal management,electrically isolated slug, etc., the only downside is the narrow viewing angle (in some applications). The XP-G should not only have those benefits,it should take all of those positives and improve on them while coming with a viewing angle much more suited to existing optics and reflectors.

And as saabluster mentioned, Cree isn't known for releasing specs on vaporware. When they make a press release, the product usually isn't far behind. 

This looks like its going to be the biggest single die technological advance since the XR-E was released a couple of years ago.

-Michael


----------



## ANDREAS FERRARI

TexLite said:


> This looks like its going to be the biggest single die technological advance since the XR-E was released a couple of years ago.
> 
> -Michael



I hope your right-we have been hoping there would be a leap from R2 to past R3-4,and into the S's!!!


----------



## phantom23

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



DM51 said:


> It says it's "cool white", which may be a polite way of saying it's quite strong on blue. Presumably they'll come out with warmer tints in due course, but will they be as efficient?


No necessarily. A few months ago "Cree tests confirmed that the 1mm x 1mm LED produced 173 lumens of light output and achieved 161 lumens per watt efficacy at a color temperature of 4689K". 4689 is quite warm...



znomit said:


> Its over 60% more lumens than the xp-e (345 vs 210lm).
> Im guessing wider and brighter!


First XP-E has 210lm at 700mA not 1A. Second - they did it making bigger die, efficiency per square cm is the same which means throw will be the same. Higher brightness, similar throw.


----------



## StandardBattery

...


----------



## blasterman

> Presumably they'll come out with warmer tints in due course, but will they be as efficient?


 
Uh, no.



> 4689 is quite warm...


 
...If you live on a planet orbiting Vega. 

However, you need a frame of reference when testing efficiency, and in this respect 4689 is a respectable starting point.


----------



## AlexGT

So who is going to sell this emmiter on CPF? and can it run at 1.2 - 1.5 or more amps provided adequate heatsink, I am curious to try it on a big reflector like the Throwmaster or with an aspheric.

AlexGT


----------



## LEDninja

I do not mind floody lights so I hope Cree will come out with a MC-G soon.
1A @ 12V or 4A @ 3V to give 345*4=1380 LED lumens or 1104 torch lumens assuming 80% transmission.
If 4 -G dies won't fit into a MC-E case they should still fit into an SSC-P7 case.


----------



## saabluster

spencer said:


> So for example this reflector is +/-2.5 degrees. How much broader do you think it will be? +/-3 degrees? Or more?


Without trying to expend too much mental energy I would expect a 2-3 degree broader beam.


----------



## wildstar87

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



saabluster said:


> That is just an excuse so they can go back to using the cheaper Q5s. R2s are plentiful and easy to get.


 
Not to hijack the thread, but other than in a lot of chinese lights which may or may not be R2s, where are they plentiful and easy to get. DX is the only place that seems to be selling an R2 on a star, I haven't seen anyone sell an R2 emitter. I know there were some group buys, but I haven't seen anything recently. I would love to get my hands on some XR-E R2 WC, but I haven't seen anyone that has them. Cutter seems to be the only place that I know of that is selling R2s and that's in an XP-E format, and from all the complaints they seem to be even worse than DX/KD on service.


----------



## saabluster

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



wildstar87 said:


> Not to hijack the thread, but other than in a lot of chinese lights which may or may not be R2s, where are they plentiful and easy to get. DX is the only place that seems to be selling an R2 on a star, I haven't seen anyone sell an R2 emitter. I know there were some group buys, but I haven't seen anything recently. I would love to get my hands on some XR-E R2 WC, but I haven't seen anyone that has them. Cutter seems to be the only place that I know of that is selling R2s and that's in an XP-E format, and from all the complaints they seem to be even worse than DX/KD on service.


Cutter has and has had for quite some time R2 binned XR-Es. They even have them in four flavors. Their staffing? issues seem to be a thing of the past so I would feel comfortable ordering from them again.


----------



## SemiMan

TexLite said:


> This looks like its going to be the biggest single die technological advance since the XR-E was released a couple of years ago.
> 
> -Michael



As has been pointed out, if the die is larger, then this is really not the huge technological improvement that it is being trumped up to be. If you increase the die size, then the current density at any given current is going to go down. As current density goes down, then efficiency goes up (to a point). Hence if this die is 50% greater in area, then the performance on a per area basis is similar to an R2 bin. As was pointed out, these are unlikely to throw further than R2 units.

That said, for my general lighting usage, assuming the price is tolerable, I am excited about these.

The higher efficiency does contribute to requiring less heat sinking as well... more energy is converted to light, not heat. That would make two fold the reasons why they are able to go to 1Amp, one less energy converted to heat, two, if the die is larger, then there is a larger thermal path (and likely lower thermal resistance).

Semiman


----------



## saabluster

SemiMan said:


> As has been pointed out, if the die is larger, then this is really not the huge technological improvement that it is being trumped up to be. If you increase the die size, then the current density at any given current is going to go down. As current density goes down, then efficiency goes up (to a point). Hence if this die is 50% greater in area, then the performance on a per area basis is similar to an R2 bin. As was pointed out, these are unlikely to throw further than R2 units.
> 
> That said, for my general lighting usage, assuming the price is tolerable, I am excited about these.
> 
> The higher efficiency does contribute to requiring less heat sinking as well... more energy is converted to light, not heat. That would make two fold the reasons why they are able to go to 1Amp, one less energy converted to heat, two, if the die is larger, then there is a larger thermal path (and likely lower thermal resistance).
> 
> Semiman


I think you are way off if you do not see this as a big jump in performance. Granted we really need to wait and see what these look like after having been tested and graphed out to see the curve but it looks like Cree has gone a long way towards getting rid of the droop. That is huge. Seems to me there would need to be some changes in the underling technology to account for this other than just the increase in surface area helping heat transfer. The big question I have is whether or not this announcement is for the top of the XP-G bin or bottom.


----------



## wildstar87

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



saabluster said:


> Cutter has and has had for quite some time R2 binned XR-Es. They even have them in four flavors. Their staffing? issues seem to be a thing of the past so I would feel comfortable ordering from them again.


 
I still wouldn't call that widely available and plentiful, from just one distributor in Austrailia. Shipping is $$$ as well. I guess I just find it strange that they are seemingly the only ones able to get these. None of the US distributors, or chinese for that matter seem to have them widely.


----------



## znomit

saabluster said:


> Seems to me there would need to be some changes in the underling technology to account for this other than just the increase in surface area helping heat transfer.


 
:twothumbs
An XP-G at 1A will put out more lumens than 2 R2s at 500mA.


----------



## BentHeadTX

Great news on the XP-G!
My venerable L1D RB100 bicycle helmet light will be replaced with a 4sevens single AA light pushing the LED at 250mA. The XP-G should be pumping 105 lumens at the LED at 250mA and give me at least 2.5 hours of runtime. A nice boost of 40% more light with about the same runtime so I can wait. After all, the third quarter is July-Sep so the first lights should show up from Aug to October 09. 
I'll get some raw XP-G's to upgrade my Dinotte 200L (like hell! the LED sucks in it) 750mA drive should get me 270 lumens and 15% better runtime with less heat generated. 
Then to upgrade the Aspheric Lens Mag from a Q5 to the XP-G. Can't pass up 50% more light with less heat and more runtime. 

It is going to be a loooooong summer!


----------



## MichaelW

BentHeadTX said:


> It is going to be a loooooong summer!



Especially with the imploding economy.
The cree xp-g series might end up as vaporware.


----------



## saabluster

MichaelW said:


> Especially with the imploding economy.
> The cree xp-g series might end up as vaporware.


You obviously don't follow the LED industry. Cree is doing awesome financially. I do not expect that change any time soon either.


----------



## MichaelW

Not trying to be a DebbieDowner, but plenty of things can change in six months.

So here is to hoping for xp-g's in four months.


----------



## baterija

MichaelW said:


> Not trying to be a DebbieDowner, but plenty of things can change in six months.


 It's a good thing the third quarter means 2-5 months then.


----------



## TexLite

SemiMan said:


> As has been pointed out, if the die is larger, then this is really not the huge technological improvement that it is being trumped up to be. If you increase the die size, then the current density at any given current is going to go down. As current density goes down, then efficiency goes up (to a point). Hence if this die is 50% greater in area, then the performance on a per area basis is similar to an R2 bin. As was pointed out, these are unlikely to throw further than R2 units.
> 
> That said, for my general lighting usage, assuming the price is tolerable, I am excited about these.
> 
> The higher efficiency does contribute to requiring less heat sinking as well... more energy is converted to light, not heat. That would make two fold the reasons why they are able to go to 1Amp, one less energy converted to heat, two, if the die is larger, then there is a larger thermal path (and likely lower thermal resistance).
> 
> Semiman



The increase in efficiency isn't nearly as exciting to me as is the overall package of the emitter. 

I would be excited even if these were at the same efficieny level as current emitters. My favorite single die emitter at the moment is the Neutral tint XR-E. I love the output and tint, but the viewing angle makes it a more specialized emitter. It is limited in the applications for which it will work, usually requiring a reflector/optic designed for the unique viewing angle. 

The XP-G will share the tint, efficiency, electrically isolated slug, and thermal characteristics of the XR-E while improving upon the emission pattern. Something which will make it a great candidate for many reflectors and optics already available in so many different configurations. 

This should make it a wonderful candidate for retrofits with Luxeon emitters. The SSC P4 is a good emitter for Luxeon swaps, but the tint isn't as good as the XR-E, the efficiency isn't quite as high, and the positive slug can also complicate matters. The XP-G would be more like an Lux-III emitter with XR-E tint and output.

In short, there is nothing revolutionary about technological aspects of this LED, what is revolutionary is the combined technologies being available in a single package. 

-Michael


----------



## saabluster

TexLite said:


> The increase in efficiency isn't nearly as exciting to me as is the overall package of the emitter.
> 
> I would be excited even if these were at the same efficieny level as current emitters. My favorite single die emitter at the moment is the Neutral tint XR-E. I love the output and tint, but the viewing angle makes it a more specialized emitter. It is limited in the applications for which it will work, usually requiring a reflector/optic designed for the unique viewing angle.
> 
> The XP-G will share the tint, efficiency, electrically isolated slug, and thermal characteristics of the XR-E while improving upon the emission pattern. Something which will make it a great candidate for many reflectors and optics already available in so many different configurations.
> 
> This should make it a wonderful candidate for retrofits with Luxeon emitters. The SSC P4 is a good emitter for Luxeon swaps, but the tint isn't as good as the XR-E, the efficiency isn't quite as high, and the positive slug can also complicate matters. The XP-G would be more like an Lux-III emitter with XR-E tint and output.
> 
> In short, there is nothing revolutionary about technological aspects of this LED, what is revolutionary is the combined technologies being available in a single package.
> 
> -Michael


Sounds like you don't even know the XP-E already exists. The "XP" is not a new platform. It will also not be a "good" candidate for Luxeon replacement(depends on specific application) as the die on the Luxeons is way higher than the Cree. The XPs are also a pain to deal with since they are so small. I can't wait to see this new die in the XR package or best of all a new, even better, package.


----------



## TexLite

saabluster said:


> Sounds like you don't even know the XP-E already exists. The "XP" is not a new platform. It will also not be a "good" candidate for Luxeon replacement(depends on specific application) as the die on the Luxeons is way higher than the Cree. The XPs are also a pain to deal with since they are so small. I can't wait to see this new die in the XR package or best of all a new, even better, package.



Whats the max drive current for the XP-E? (rhetorical)

Ever heard of Opulent? What about the 10mm star Cutter sales for the XP-E?

I would like a better package as well, but this is a great step in that direction.

-Michael


----------



## saabluster

TexLite said:


> Ever heard of Opulent? What about the 10mm star Cutter sales for the XP-E?
> 
> I would like a better package as well, but this is a great step in that direction.
> 
> -Michael


Yes I know about the MCPCBs from those companies. They do not solve the issue of die height though. MCPCBs are also a less than desirable setup as far as it relates to thermal conductivity. Ever try attaching one of these XPs down to a piece of solid metal? Its a pain in the butt. On the XR-E you can break off the corners to sever the electrical contacts to the bottom. The XP-E is too small to do this with. Add to this the thermal conductivity of the XP package is already much worse than the XR package(Hence the reduction in max allowed current) so adding the MCPCB makes it even worse.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

I still don't understand why the thermal transfer ability of the xp package is worse than the xr package. Seems to me thinner ceramic should equal better heat transfer. Maybe it's the silicone dome that can't handle the heat...

I hope the dome is the same size as other xp's. Think they could use the same TIR optics?


----------



## TexLite

saabluster said:


> Yes I know about the MCPCBs from those companies. They do not solve the issue of die height though. MCPCBs are also a less than desirable setup as far as it relates to thermal conductivity. Ever try attaching one of these XPs down to a piece of solid metal? Its a pain in the butt. On the XR-E you can break off the corners to sever the electrical contacts to the bottom. The XP-E is too small to do this with. Add to this the thermal conductivity of the XP package is already much worse than the XR package(Hence the reduction in max allowed current) so adding the MCPCB makes it even worse.



I agree its less than ideal, the package that is. But it is an improvemnt over the XP-E. 

This is the first time a Cree die has been available in a package with a rated 1000mA input that should be cross compatible in more applications than the XR-E. 

The fact that it should work with a Mag reflector alone is good news to me. Not to mention other applications where a star or MCPCB could raise the die hight and may also make it compatible with so many other applications where the die height would otherwise make it incompatible, the same way some major manufacturers have made the tiny Rebel work where a "full sized" emitter once resided without an engineering change to the host.

There are negatives, but I'm willing to deal with them if it can be made to work where the XR-E won't.

-Michael


----------



## saabluster

bshanahan14rulz said:


> I still don't understand why the thermal transfer ability of the xp package is worse than the xr package. Seems to me thinner ceramic should equal better heat transfer. Maybe it's the silicone dome that can't handle the heat...


In the XR package the die sits on a piece of SiC that acts as a heat spreader before the heat is transfered through the ceramic. This lowers the thermal impedance.


----------



## rotatorcuff

Just got back from seeing the XP-G in person at Light Fair. 

1) The die has 2mm^2 of area (confirmed by a talkative sales rep, 1.4mm x 1.4mm). This means that driving at 350mA reduces the current density in the chip by 1/2, increasing the overall efficacy. I think it's cheating in the technology race, but it does have better efficiency than their other products. 

2) The highest cost of any LED is the chip, which presumably that Cree will either be charging more for this or will be lowering their profit margins.

3) The XP-G uses the same XP-E packaging, Cree has a long way to go to prove that this package, designed for a smaller chip, can take the heat and perform reliably. This is presumably why it's going to be released "sometime" in Q3. I'm very worried this could be vaporware or not have the performance and reliability. Though, you could drive this at 2x the currents of a regular XR-E and get similar performance... or fry it from the heat.

4) The XP-G primary optic looked strange when compared to the XP-E side by side, possibly off-center. The chip completely fills the optic. They had a demo box set up where you could compare the two. These may have been hand-built prototypes to get them out in time for the show (they had 2 of them). Again, this made me concerned about vaporware and the amount of validation and reliability behind it, but I got to hold one in my hand. It is visibly brighter when driven at 350mA, as you'd expect, and I was told it "would work with the XP-E optics" though they didn't seem to know how well or to what level the optics would be a 1-to-1 fit.

5) I also saw the Luminus Devices SST-90 device (which won the Technical Innovation Award there over the XP-G and others). I saw cool and warm versions and they were in a few different products and fixture vendor booths. This is a 3mmx3mm chip that gives 1000lm (100 lm/W at 10W), so you could presumably drive this one at 5W and get efficiency equal to the XP-G at 350mA, but over 650lm instead of 137lm . This sucker puts out a whopping ~2200 lm at it's maximum current point. And it works with optics I already have. :twothumbs

6) Nothing much in terms of performance increases from other manufacturers. There were a lot of pretty lights though!


----------



## MichaelW

Pretty soon AAA and CR2 will be the new EDC

'Introducing the new 125 lumen EZAAA, powered by xp-g. The 'g' is for gratuitous amounts of lumens.


----------



## Benson

MichaelW said:


> Pretty soon AAA and CR2 will be the new EDC


Ya know, my biggest complaint about many CR123 lights is that they're too short (i.e. shorter than my fist) -- I don't think CR2's gonna help with that. 

But an EZ-CR2 (or other XP-G RCR2 light) for keychain/backup duty?


----------



## ANDREAS FERRARI

rotatorcuff said:


> ....Luminus Devices SST-90....puts out a whopping ~2200 lm at it's maximum current point....



What a great time to be alive.Now all we need is some quantum leaps in battery technology to keep pace.


----------



## TexLite

rotatorcuff said:


> Just got back from seeing the XP-G in person at Light Fair.



I would have loved to have been able to attend in person, maybe next year. 



rotatorcuff said:


> 1) The die has 2mm^2 of area (confirmed by a talkative sales rep, 1.4mm x 1.4mm). This means that driving at 350mA reduces the current density in the chip by 1/2, increasing the overall efficacy. I think it's cheating in the technology race, but it does have better efficiency than their other products.



This will of course also translate into a larger hotspot. Shouldn't be an issue with large reflectors considering how well the XP-E and Rebel work in those applications, small reflectors and optics might be a different story though.



rotatorcuff said:


> 2) The highest cost of any LED is the chip, which presumably that Cree will either be charging more for this or will be lowering their profit margins.



Do you mean Cree LED's in general, or specifically the XP-G?



rotatorcuff said:


> 3) The XP-G uses the same XP-E packaging, Cree has a long way to go to prove that this package, designed for a smaller chip, can take the heat and perform reliably. This is presumably why it's going to be released "sometime" in Q3. I'm very worried this could be vaporware or not have the performance and reliability. Though, you could drive this at 2x the currents of a regular XR-E and get similar performance... or fry it from the heat.



It will be interesting to see how well they hold up, especially the Warm and Neutral bins.



rotatorcuff said:


> 4) The XP-G primary optic looked strange when compared to the XP-E side by side, possibly off-center. The chip completely fills the optic. They had a demo box set up where you could compare the two. These may have been hand-built prototypes to get them out in time for the show (they had 2 of them). Again, this made me concerned about vaporware and the amount of validation and reliability behind it, but I got to hold one in my hand. It is visibly brighter when driven at 350mA, as you'd expect, and I was told it "would work with the XP-E optics" though they didn't seem to know how well or to what level the optics would be a 1-to-1 fit.



Hopefully it was indeed a prototype assembly error and not something that will find its way into the production units. 



rotatorcuff said:


> 5) I also saw the Luminus Devices SST-90 device (which won the Technical Innovation Award there over the XP-G and others). I saw cool and warm versions and they were in a few different products and fixture vendor booths. This is a 3mmx3mm chip that gives 1000lm (100 lm/W at 10W), so you could presumably drive this one at 5W and get efficiency equal to the XP-G at 350mA, but over 650lm instead of 137lm . This sucker puts out a whopping ~2200 lm at it's maximum current point. And it works with optics I already have. :twothumbs



Certainly looks like they'll be a real beast. They're supposed to be available by the end of June.



rotatorcuff said:


> 6) Nothing much in terms of performance increases from other manufacturers. There were a lot of pretty lights though!



Anything interesting from Osram?

Thanks for the info, good post.

-Michael


----------



## Aircraft800

Great Review *rotatorcuff*! 

I wish I could have been there, and welcome to CPF 
(where have you been?)
:welcome:


----------



## tsask

rotatorcuff said:


> Just got back from seeing the XP-G in person at Light Fair.
> 5) I also saw the Luminus Devices SST-90 device (which won the Technical Innovation Award there over the XP-G and others). I saw cool and warm versions and they were in a few different products and fixture vendor booths. This is a 3mmx3mm chip that gives 1000lm (100 lm/W at 10W), so you could presumably drive this one at 5W and get efficiency equal to the XP-G at 350mA, but over 650lm instead of 137lm . This sucker puts out a whopping ~2200 lm at it's maximum current point. And it works with optics I already have. :twothumbs
> 
> 6) Nothing much in terms of performance increases from other manufacturers. There were a lot of pretty lights though!


 
Glad you could make it to NYC for lightfare 2009. I was there and shared the "CPF story" with several vendors. It was nice to meet some of the folks from CREE, Nichia, Phillips, LEDTronics etc etc


----------



## SemiMan

saabluster said:


> I think you are way off if you do not see this as a big jump in performance. Granted we really need to wait and see what these look like after having been tested and graphed out to see the curve but it looks like Cree has gone a long way towards getting rid of the droop. That is huge. Seems to me there would need to be some changes in the underling technology to account for this other than just the increase in surface area helping heat transfer. The big question I have is whether or not this announcement is for the top of the XP-G bin or bottom.



I am not way off..... I am informed ... and I am not sure you read my post completely. This is a MUCH bigger die than the XP/XR-E. They have not gone a long way to get rid of the droop. Droop is a factor of current density per area. If you increase the area significantly, you likewise reduce the current density. You are not getting rid of the underlying droop issue. I do expect they have made some minor improvements over the R2 bin, but not several bins of improvement, maybe 1.

My comment on heat was w.r.t. the larger die allows a lower thermal resistance, die to board, and hence they can run the part at a higher current. Also would reduce issues w.r.t. phosphor degradation

Semiman


----------



## SemiMan

rotatorcuff said:


> Just got back from seeing the XP-G in person at Light Fair.
> 
> 6) Nothing much in terms of performance increases from other manufacturers. There were a lot of pretty lights though!



I am not discounting personally the release of the REBEL-ES from Lumileds though it may take a deeper look at the spec to see what is nice about this part:

1) 100 Lumens/Watt. That actually closely matches the "typical" Cree R2.... 114 lumens/ (3.2V typ * 350)mA = 102 Lumens/Watt.

2) Maximum forward voltage of 3.29V (versus 3.9 for XR-E/XP-E). To me that is interesting as it puts tight bounds on what my power supply needs to be. That allows reasonable single cell Lithium-Ion drive at 350mA. I can likely have a high power mode for a good deal of battery life.

Semiman

p.s. I was at lightfair as well. There as a lot of buzz in the Phlatlight booth. It is a good product and from discussion they will be competitive on the lumens/watt front.

For those more with a general lighting interest, Cree had a mixture of what looked like a phosphor converted yellow with a red led that created a high CRI white light. Nichia had a Superflux like LED that was 150lumens/watt. Low power LED, but if you need maximum efficiency, and do not want to spend a fortune on a single LED, that would be it.

Unless I missed it, OSRAM had little presence.


----------



## TexLite

SemiMan said:


> p.s. I was at lightfair as well. There as a lot of buzz in the Phlatlight booth. It is a good product and from discussion they will be competitive on the lumens/watt front.



Did you hear any mention of a price point for the SST-90? The only info I've seen is from one distributor and it was ~$38.00. 



SemiMan said:


> For those more with a general lighting interest, Cree had a mixture of what looked like a phosphor converted yellow with a red led that created a high CRI white light.



Is that the "TrueWhite" technology being used in the high CRI downlights? One of the press releases mentioned the XP-G being used in those fixtures as well. 



SemiMan said:


> Unless I missed it, OSRAM had little presence.



While most other manufacturers seem to be making advances, Osram has been fairly quiet. Not a huge fan, just wondering if they had anything interesting coming.

Thanks for the info, I appreciate the posts by people who were able to attend. 

-Michael


----------



## saabluster

TexLite said:


> Did you hear any mention of a price point for the SST-90? The only info I've seen is from one distributor and it was ~$38.00.



Depends on how many you are ordering of course but pricing starts at $33 and goes down with volume.


----------



## saabluster

SemiMan said:


> I am not way off..... I am informed ... and I am not sure you read my post completely. This is a MUCH bigger die than the XP/XR-E. They have not gone a long way to get rid of the droop. Droop is a factor of current density per area. If you increase the area significantly, you likewise reduce the current density. You are not getting rid of the underlying droop issue. I do expect they have made some minor improvements over the R2 bin, but not several bins of improvement, maybe 1.
> 
> My comment on heat was w.r.t. the larger die allows a lower thermal resistance, die to board, and hence they can run the part at a higher current. Also would reduce issues w.r.t. phosphor degradation
> 
> Semiman


I read all your post and I stick by what I said. I did misunderstand you however and I'm sorry about that. I thought that you did not see it as a performance jump but you actually were talking about a technological jump. I don't disagree that the increase in surface area/drop in current density has a lot to do with the increased performance. However, there is something else going on here. As was mentioned earlier this new XP-G has more lumens at 1A than two top of the line R2s at 500mA a piece. That is the same current density. Now add to that that the lumen figures for the two R2s would have to be derated if you stuck the two dies together in the same package as they would be adding heat to one another so close. That makes these numbers with the XP-G even more amazing.

Now as to the droop thing. You cannot say they have not reduced droop because if you look at power in verses lumens out it is plainly evident by the numbers this thing puts out. You said it yourself. "Droop is a factor of current density per area." Therefore per your statement if you want to reduce droop you decrease the current density per area. And that is exactly what they have done. So how can you say they have not reduced droop? I get what you are saying though. It seems like a less elegant solution than maybe etching of dies or applying quantum dots. It seems like a bandaid or even cheating somehow. Nevertheless it is a solution that works.


----------



## ledstein

Press releases are a marketing tool to "stir up" the waters, make people talking. For this reason performances of the product are a lot or slightly exaggerated. 

As someone else said above: just wait for mass production and tests.


----------



## jtr1962

An easy way to see if they did anything about current droop would be to test an XP-G, then plot the relative output versus current, normalized to 750 mA. Compare this to a graph of the XP-E or XR-E with the relative output normalized to 350 mA. This procedure factors out the current density differences. I plan to do this whenever I can get an XP-G.

Regardless of how they did it, this is a very exciting development! When I originally read the LED technology roadmaps several years ago, 150 lm/W in production wasn't forecast until 2012. We're practically there in 2009, assuming this isn't vaporware (I doubt that because Cree never makes announcements unless the product is well into the pipeline). In fact, my guess is they are already making these in production quantities, and holding out for the official release until they build up a reasonable stock.

Interestingly, I'm not expecting any dramatic increases in efficiency at very low currents. I've noticed a trend where as LEDs get more efficient the relative efficiency increase at 20 mA compared to 350 mA has gone down. For example, with a P4 bin XR-E the ratio was 1.507. For the R2 bin it was down to 1.422. For the new XP-G I'll hazard a guess of 1.3, which translates to about 172 lm/W. BTW, highest lab efficiency I've ever heard of so far was for a superflux type LED by Nichia. It achieved 169 lm/W at 20 mA and IIRC 191 lm/W at 3 or 4 mA. See this thread.


----------



## LIGHTSMAD

it just keeps gettin better & better


----------



## spencer

I think I remember someone saying it had a 2^2mm die. Thats 4 times larger than the current die.


----------



## MichaelW

spencer said:


> I think I remember someone saying it had a 2^2mm die. Thats 4 times larger than the current die.



The xp-g has a 2 square mm die (1.41mmx1.41mm if it is truly square). It is double a normal 1x1mm die, it is half the 2x2 mc-e.

How small is the xr-c, xp-c?


----------



## spencer

Ok I see now. I was wrong.


----------



## HumanLumen

I am dissapointed at the cree announcement - if you double the chip area, then 139 lumens / 2 = 69.5 lumens per mm2 at 350mA. Compare this to 114 lumens per mm2 at 350mA for an R2. Thus, the surace brightness per unit area at the same overall current is way down, and as such the spot will be much dimmer using the same reflectors (unless of course they can make the apparent size of the die smaller using a cunning built in dome - please correct me if I am wrong - which I would like to be as i look forward to these 'advancments'). What does everyone else think???

HL


----------



## HumanLumen

Aaaaaaar! Reading back through the posts it looks like my point above has been mooted before. Sorry - I am currently in Korea on business from the UK and have missed a few days posting!!!!!

HL


----------



## rotatorcuff

Just drive it with a higher current. You'd lose any efficiency advantage, but your spot would be as bright as the XP-E.


----------



## Fallingwater

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



jzmtl said:


> Ah crap, that means all my lights will soon be outdated.


Think of it another way... your lights will soon be eligible for modding


----------



## MichaelW

Your lights will be antiques quicker.:twothumbs

If the xp-g does 345 lumens at 1 amp.
What would a hypothetical xr-g do, 500 lumens at 1.5 amps?

and a theoretical mc-g, 1000 lumens at 700mA per die?


----------



## StandardBattery

rotatorcuff said:


> Just got back from seeing the XP-G in person at Light Fair. *...*


 
Thanks For the nice report! :welcome:


----------



## zzonbi

some more insight here http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1241527329071

could it be that the new xp-g alone will have the rather high 92 CRI?


----------



## saabluster

zzonbi said:


> some more insight here http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1241527329071
> 
> could it be that the new xp-g alone will have the rather high 92 CRI?


No. They mix in color LEDs with the white to raise the CRI.


----------



## zzonbi

Probably adding red. Pitty they can't get the same effect by adding some red phosphor to the mix (typical Cree CRI being 75, and 80 for warm white).


----------



## saabluster

zzonbi said:


> Probably adding red. Pitty they can't get the same effect by adding some red phosphor to the mix (typical Cree CRI being 75, and 80 for warm white).


Technically they can but it would have lower efficiency than just adding LEDs that make the right color from the get-go.


----------



## blasterman

> but it would have lower efficiency than just adding LEDs that make the right color from the get-go


 
That's kind of a loaded statement with a lot of complexities to argue on both sides. 

If it's true, then we might as well just build monochrome LEDs and give up on multi-spectrum phosphor mixes because the former will always be more efficient.

If it's false, then we have to contend with electro-optical laws that dictate that higher CRI (more spectral gaps to fill) means lower efficiency given current technology. 

Also, while not entirely familiar with the details, it's my understanding that an additional reason Cree uses multi color emitters in their high end fixtures is they are dynamically/automatically adjusted for precise color mixing throughout the life of the fixture. My own opinion on this is it's just another widget to break, but also feel it's because Cree isn't currently as yet focused on pushing high CRI because they want to funnel R&D in other directions. So, the multi LED approach is just a stop gap.


----------



## saabluster

blasterman said:


> That's kind of a loaded statement with a lot of complexities to argue on both sides.
> 
> If it's true, then we might as well just build monochrome LEDs and give up on multi-spectrum phosphor mixes because the former will always be more efficient.
> 
> If it's false, then we have to contend with electro-optical laws that dictate that higher CRI (more spectral gaps to fill) means lower efficiency given current technology.
> 
> Also, while not entirely familiar with the details, it's my understanding that an additional reason Cree uses multi color emitters in their high end fixtures is they are dynamically/automatically adjusted for precise color mixing throughout the life of the fixture. My own opinion on this is it's just another widget to break, but also feel it's because Cree isn't currently as yet focused on pushing high CRI because they want to funnel R&D in other directions. So, the multi LED approach is just a stop gap.


Anything can be argued but that does not make it valid.


----------



## blasterman

I'd like to contest that point 

...But it is true that Cree uses more than one emitter type in their fixtures for reasons other than elevating CRI.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

They use yellow and red LEDs. I don't know if they use white though... There is a datasheet somewhere that states this. Just look up on the cree site the model of that "bulb" and you will find a pdf.


----------



## R33E8

I'm pretty sure they use white and red LEDs in their downlamp fixture... They have the technology to makes higher lm/w high cri fixtures but I don't know why they make them.. If I remember correctly, it involved using a yellow LEDs with a blue phosphorconfused and red Osram Dragon LEDs..


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

Cree probably wouldn't use osram golden dragons, but thats just me speculating.

http://www.creeledlighting.com/lr6.htm

under the heading: *World-Changing Technology*, article states:


> The core of the innovation is a new way to generate white light with LEDs.



under the next heading: *A Better Way to Generate White Light*


> It delivers high efficacy light with beautiful, warm color characteristics by mixing the light from yellow and red LEDs. This approach enables active color management that maintains tight color consistency over the life of the product.



This leads me to believe that as the lamp ages (or perhaps there is a color sensor of some sort), circuitry adjusts the brightness of the yellow and red LEDs to keep the same color temp.


----------



## saabluster

bshanahan14rulz said:


> Cree probably wouldn't use osram golden dragons, but thats just me speculating.
> 
> http://www.creeledlighting.com/lr6.htm
> 
> under the heading: *World-Changing Technology*, article states:
> 
> 
> under the next heading: *A Better Way to Generate White Light*
> 
> 
> This leads me to believe that as the lamp ages (or perhaps there is a color sensor of some sort), circuitry adjusts the brightness of the yellow and red LEDs to keep the same color temp.



I do not think the minimal tint shift over time is the big reason they have this setup. If you think about it it means they can put any tint white in there and the color LEDs can compensate for it. This allows more flexibility to use up some of the product that may be less desirable to their LED customers and therefore reduces unused stock on the shelves that they would otherwise have to sell at bargain-base prices to move. It really is genius.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

Ah, yes. Same fixture, offer in cool, neutral, warm white, all they have to do is reprogram it! Who will be first to hack it? (hacking lightbulbs? what's the world coming to?!)


----------



## Yoda4561

bshanahan14rulz said:


> Ah, yes. Same fixture, offer in cool, neutral, warm white, all they have to do is reprogram it! Who will be first to hack it? (hacking lightbulbs? what's the world coming to?!)


----------



## LEDAdd1ct

LEDninja said:


> I do not mind floody lights so I hope Cree will come out with a MC-G soon.
> 1A @ 12V or 4A @ 3V to give 345*4=1380 LED lumens or 1104 torch lumens assuming 80% transmission.
> If 4 -G dies won't fit into a MC-E case they should still fit into an SSC-P7 case.



So, _will_ this be offered in a quad-die configuration like the MC-E?


----------



## AardvarkSagus

LEDAdd1ct said:


> So, _will_ this be offered in a quad-die configuration like the MC-E?


I don't believe anyone has any actual (non-speculative) information on this yet. I sure hope so though.


----------



## Illum

sometimes I wonder who really benefits from all this new research and development...

Unless the factory turnaround time can stop on a dime I don't think they can immediately utilize the new LEDs and adapt them into whatever fixture or portable electronics currently in production...

While it gives us a perspective for things to come I fail to see a significance in being in high hopes everytime something like this comes about. A shift in P4 to Q4 CREEs was a major change...but looking at it from a Q4 to Q5 didn't change much did it? I think it might be more beneficial if we start approaching this on a bigger scale rather on a consecutive, if not longitudional scale...


----------



## qip

anyone here get any xpg ...this guy has them apparently


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

Does he? I think that is a prototype bike light and is using xp-e right now, while he waits for xp-g (same solder pads) to come out.

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2973271


----------



## saabluster

Just thought I would update this thread with the further nugget of info that has now been made known. I have been contending throughout this thread that there had to be more than just the fact that the die was larger(more surface area for heat transfer) to account for the outstanding performance of the XP-G. We now know Cree has come out with Gen II dies that have some new technology in them that will allow the same output but with a smaller die in the XR-E. This presumably would also be applied to the new XP-G die and is the reason why it is as efficient as it is.:nana:


----------



## AardvarkSagus

SWEET! That's excellent news. Guess we have a new crop of lights headed our way specified as Gen II.


----------



## Burgess

Hopefully by Christmas. :thumbsup:








. . . . of *this year* ! ! !





_


----------



## baterija

Saw the thread pop back up and looked...today is the start of the 3Q. I was hoping for news of the first samples getting out to some of those here that requested them.

I'll just go rock in the corner and mutter to myself while waiting "patiently."


----------



## Burgess

Here, have some Popcorn !





_


----------



## jabe1




----------



## Marduke

baterija said:


> Saw the thread pop back up and looked...today is the start of the 3Q. I was hoping for news of the first samples getting out to some of those here that requested them.
> 
> I'll just go rock in the corner and mutter to myself while waiting "patiently."




I was fortunate enough to play with someone's sample of an XP-G R4 in action. It was quite something, almost like a half power MC-E sort of light.


----------



## Burgess

Thank you, Marduke !



:wow:

_


----------



## LEDAdd1ct

Darn't, now I have to get a new bib...


----------



## jashhash

Anyone have some Idea what the pricing on these will be?


----------



## lolzertank

baterija said:


> Saw the thread pop back up and looked...today is the start of the 3Q. I was hoping for news of the first samples getting out to some of those here that requested them.
> 
> I'll just go rock in the corner and mutter to myself while waiting "patiently."


 
 Really?! I might need to hold my temptation to order 12 Rebel 0100s for a Mag mod... Jumping from 2160 emitter lumens to 4140 will be nice... oh wait, then I need IMR cells Oh well, 3000+ will still be nice...

D'oh, better start practicing my soldering skills... these are going to be harder than the Rebels.


----------



## saabluster

baterija said:


> Saw the thread pop back up and looked...today is the start of the 3Q. I was hoping for news of the first samples getting out to some of those here that requested them.
> 
> I'll just go rock in the corner and mutter to myself while waiting "patiently."


My XP-G samples are shipping tomorrow.  Sadly once they get here there is not much I will be able to tell you about them. They made me sign a non-discloser form. I'm sure this is why nobody has not seen any info from the few here who probably already have them. It even says not to tell anyone within your own company that is not on a need to know basis.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

I wish I had a lighting company. I didn't even bother with requesting samples, hardly a chance that I'd get approved.

Saa? can you say that I work for OMG Lumens, Inc.? Because I'm already on a NEED to know basis, I just need to be within your company


----------



## MichaelW

saabluster said:


> My XP-G samples are shipping tomorrow.  Sadly once they get here there is not much I will be able to tell you about them. They made me sign a non-discloser form. It even says not to tell anyone within your own company that is not on a need to know basis.



Will you be able to tell us how bad it [the magic smoke] smells when you try to push 2+ amps through one?
Less filling [than mc-e] tastes great


----------



## baterija

Thanks Saab. The information I was after was mostly shippping at this point. I'm sure we'll see a datasheet before I could get my hands on them anyway...and about that time NDA's will be expiring so even more info here. :naughty:


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

are you even allowed to tell us when nda expires?


----------



## lolzertank

saabluster said:


> My XP-G samples are shipping tomorrow.  Sadly once they get here there is not much I will be able to tell you about them. They made me sign a non-discloser form. I'm sure this is why nobody has not seen any info from the few here who probably already have them. It even says not to tell anyone within your own company that is not on a need to know basis.



Why must Cree tempt us so much? WHY?!!?!?  Somehow, I think I'd prefer them just suddenly putting them on the market, but that wouldn't work well from a business point of view. 

The wait continues...


----------



## saabluster

bshanahan14rulz said:


> are you even allowed to tell us when nda expires?


I don't recall them saying. I would assume it would end once normal production shipments start. According to the paperwork the XP-Gs aren't even mine. Cree retains ownership and can ask to have them back at any time. That is probably why they don't require payment for them. Seems fair to me.


----------



## qip

if they ask for it back would you give it to them if you modded it in a light that was hard to disassemble :devil: 


they cant get here fast enough i want them in my lights now


----------



## Nitroz

This is great stuff. Can't wait for these to start shipping.


To bad that Photonfanatic does not sell Crees.


----------



## KDOG3

So anyword on when Malkoff will be using these guys? I definetly am intersted now! I was going to pick up a new light but now I'll just wait. I wonder if we'll be able to transplant these into lights like the LX2, E1B, etc....


----------



## lolzertank

qip said:


> if they ask for it back would you give it to them if you modded it in a light that was hard to disassemble :devil:
> 
> 
> they cant get here fast enough i want them in my lights now



If Saabluster tests them to death, I wonder if they can take back the magic smoke?  "1 molecule here, don't lose it!" :hairpull:


----------



## RyanA

KDOG3 said:


> So anyword on when Malkoff will be using these guys? I definetly am intersted now! I was going to pick up a new light but now I'll just wait. I wonder if we'll be able to transplant these into lights like the LX2, E1B, etc....



I have doubts that these will work with XR-E optics. XP-E maybe, reflectors should be fine. A blank dx 26 mm dropin with a smo reflector would probably turn out pretty well.

Keep an eye on this thread, If the XP-G works with XP-E optics, well, it's hard to say, should be interesting.
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/233442

I really want to see one behind an asphere though.


----------



## RyanA

saabluster said:


> My XP-G samples are shipping tomorrow.  Sadly once they get here there is not much I will be able to tell you about them. They made me sign a non-discloser form. I'm sure this is why nobody has not seen any info from the few here who probably already have them. It even says not to tell anyone within your own company that is not on a need to know basis.



Mike, what if there was a DEFT shootout thread with various yet *ahem* undisclosed leds.:devil:


----------



## saabluster

lolzertank said:


> If Saabluster tests them to death, I wonder if they can take back the magic smoke?  "1 molecule here, don't lose it!" :hairpull:


I _will_ find the absolute limit of these LEDs. If my work with the XR-Es is anything to go by I will hit the upper limit in lumens before I see any magic smoke. 



RyanA said:


> Mike, what if there was a DEFT shootout thread with various yet *ahem* undisclosed leds.:devil:


It is tempting to be sure and I can't say I haven't thought of it but I would hate to have them release the hounds on me.


----------



## Nitroz

saabluster said:


> I _will_
> 
> It is tempting to be sure and I can't say I haven't thought of it but I would hate to have them release the hounds on me.



Release the hounds! J.K. Time will tell..........HURRY!


----------



## saabluster

Well I just got my new XP-G R3 on the same day as I got the new SST 90s. What a day!

BTW anyone notice that Cree now has the R3 bin listed in the XP-E and XP-C Binning and Labeling PDF? It stills says XP-E and XP-C but _not_ XP-G at the top. One would think if the new specs were for the XP-G that that would be a good time to add the XP-G to the sheet but they didn't. Hmmm:thinking:


----------



## Nitroz

saabluster said:


> Well I just got my new XP-G R3 on the same day as I got the new SST 90s. What a day!



Excellent! Now I can't wait to hear more details about the XP-G. Brightness, forward voltage, beam profile, and some pictures.


----------



## lolzertank

saabluster said:


> Well I just got my new XP-G R3 on the same day as I got the new SST 90s. What a day!
> 
> BTW anyone notice that Cree now has the R3 bin listed in the XP-E and XP-C Binning and Labeling PDF? It stills says XP-E and XP-C but _not_ XP-G at the top. One would think if the new specs were for the XP-G that that would be a good time to add the XP-G to the sheet but they didn't. Hmmm:thinking:



Just R3?  I was hoping you'd get the R5 mentioned in their press release.

The R3 bin has been listed in the XP-E datasheet for a while now. https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/217393 Post #7
In fact, you commented on it yourself...


----------



## saabluster

lolzertank said:


> The R3 bin has been listed in the XP-E datasheet for a while now. https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/217393 Post #7
> In fact, you commented on it yourself...



I'm not known for my memory.


----------



## Burgess

Well, *that* could be helpful . . . .


" NDA ? ? ? _*What*_ NDA ? ? ? "





_


----------



## oregon

Samples of XP-G LEDs here soon (late July/early August), this info received from CREE today:

"We expect samples to be available through our distributors either at the end of this month or early next month. Contact information for a distributor in your area may be found via the following link: http://www.cree.com/products/XLamp_distributors/lightleds_dist_namerica.asp#Oregon."
 
oregon


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

@Burgess: shh don't remind him

and nice touch, oregon (#oregon)


----------



## lolzertank

We need to go to the past and make Cree sign a NDA about Saabluster's NDA


----------



## saabluster

Burgess said:


> Well, *that* could be helpful . . . .
> 
> 
> " NDA ? ? ? _*What*_ NDA ? ? ? "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


----------



## brightnorm

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*

Deleted
BN


----------



## Nitroz

Does anyone know what the viewing angle is for the XP-G?


----------



## WeLight

Nitroz said:


> Does anyone know what the viewing angle is for the XP-G?



Approximately XPE I would venture


----------



## Nitroz

WeLight said:


> Approximately XPE I would venture



Is that just a WAG?


----------



## baterija

Nitroz said:


> Is that just a WAG?



Since there's no published data sheet yet and those with them in hand are under NDA I would say yes it's just a WAG...at least that's my WAG about the answer to your question.


----------



## Nitroz

baterija said:


> Since there's no published data sheet yet and those with them in hand are under NDA I would say yes it's just a WAG...at least that's my WAG about the answer to your question.



:hahaha:


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

if wag means what I think it does, I'd say no, it's more of an educated guess. Same package and dome as XP-E would probably create close to the same angle.


----------



## tedsti

So the real question is when will I be able to buy 3 of these on a 20mm star from Cutter? I need to decide whether to wait for these or go with an MC-E.


----------



## Th232

Curious then, while we can't say for certain, if the XP-G emission pattern is similar/identical to that of the XP-E, then that would mean it'd be less efficient for use in an aspheric setup compared to an XR-E? Might still beat it on shear output, but it sounds to me like an XR-E would still be more efficient.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

Gotta wait and find out


----------



## lolzertank

If they wanted to keep the emission angle, they'd probably have to throw in the rings too. Then again, aspherics are pretty awesome.


----------



## Kestrel

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



DM51 said:


> It says it's "cool white", which may be a polite way of saying it's quite strong on blue. Presumably they'll come out with warmer tints in due course, but will they be as efficient?


I've been kicking around this thought for a bit, and I was wondering, for you folks who have been paying attention to the warmer tints for a while - How long did it take after initial releases of previous "cool white" emitters for warmer tints to become available?


----------



## nailbender

The Viewing angle for the XP-G is slightly different but not much it is 125 degrees.


----------



## baterija

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



Kestrel said:


> I've been kicking around this thought for a bit, and I was wondering, for you folks who have been paying attention to the warmer tints for a while - How long did it take after initial releases of previous "cool white" emitters for warmer tints to become available?



Not sure the historical time matters. The phosphors used are already available. It should just be a matter of using them. It's probably more a matter of Cree deciding which part of the market to service when production is still ramping up and the initial die availability is still lower.


----------



## Nitroz

nailbender said:


> The Viewing angle for the XP-G is slightly different but not much it is 125 degrees.



Do you have a link for this info?


----------



## nailbender

Nitroz said:


> Do you have a link for this info?



No I don't as I got that from the lighting manager at Arrow Lighting Division. Arrow has its regular division and then a lighting division and I have communicated with this is a manager of the lighting division on another matter before so I emailed for the specs and a few other questions. 

They quoted me the specs and tentative shipping dates for the XPG, but I am sure those are the dates Cree gives out all the time. 
While asking about die sizes and such I was told that the viewing angle was 125 degrees. I would imagine it to be a pretty good source. 
I was also quoted that there would be three flux codes released - R2-114 lumens, R3 -122 lumens and R4 rated @ 130 lumens

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Dave


----------



## SFG2Lman

does anyone know how these will compare with the luminus sst-50 LEDs?? I am really anxious to have the best single 18650 thrower and right now i have dereelight R2 with SMO should I buy the sst-50 dropin now or wait for this XP-G?? I really would not like to wait for the XP-G (money to burn) unless its going to be considerably better. Thanks!


----------



## Nitroz

nailbender said:


> No I don't as I got that from the lighting manager at Arrow Lighting Division. Arrow has its regular division and then a lighting division and I have communicated with this is a manager of the lighting division on another matter before so I emailed for the specs and a few other questions.
> 
> They quoted me the specs and tentative shipping dates for the XPG, but I am sure those are the dates Cree gives out all the time.
> While asking about die sizes and such I was told that the viewing angle was 125 degrees. I would imagine it to be a pretty good source.
> I was also quoted that there would be three flux codes released - R2-114 lumens, R3 -122 lumens and R4 rated @ 130 lumens
> 
> [FONT=&quot]
> [/FONT]
> 
> Dave



The 125 degree viewing angle sounds great! I can't wait to be able to use some of these.

Thanks!


----------



## SFG2Lman

***continuously hits refresh, desperately hoping someone will pay attention***


----------



## HarryN

SFG2Lman said:


> does anyone know how these will compare with the luminus sst-50 LEDs?? I am really anxious to have the best single 18650 thrower and right now i have dereelight R2 with SMO should I buy the sst-50 dropin now or wait for this XP-G?? I really would not like to wait for the XP-G (money to burn) unless its going to be considerably better. Thanks!



Hi, I will join into this fun guessing game with you. 

In general, a smaller die package will be easier to focus and manage the light, but this also is affected by the emitted angle of the light. The more the light is "thrown forward" out of the emitter package, the easier it is for a lens to deal with.

One theoretical way to test the answer would be to "assume" an R3 bin, and similar light output angles to other Cree products. How much light is going forward in the first say 60 degrees? (from the data sheet)

(% of the total within 60 degrees) x (total lumens) = some number

Do this for the products you are interested in comparing, and that will be a good "indication". I would be curious to see your results.


----------



## SFG2Lman

awesome suggestion, it looks like luminus has the same graph for the sst-50 and fir the sst-90. I assumed that an R3 would have similar output to an R2 and according to the data sheet graph it looked like roughly 80% of the light was emmitted out of the forward 60 degrees (30 degrees each way of 0). The luminus sst LEDs appeared slightly better at 85-90%. The problem is now that the SST-50 runs 550 lumens at 100% of its luminous flux at about 1.8 amps and the sst-90 runs at 1000 lumens at 3.2 amps (100%) assuming this is correct and cree and luminus measure lumens the same way....I need to purchase an SST-90 immediately as waiting for the xpg is now pointless. I do not know what the XP-Gs pull as far as amperage goes, but when I look at 122 lumens compared to 550, all I worry about is heat sinking. (I think this is what you were going for, and both LEDs had similar spatial distribution graphs, the SSTs winning by a little. The lumens though made the SSTs the clear winner in my book. I hope someone has a good counterpoint/correction to this because it doesn't seem right.


----------



## lolzertank

SFG2Lman said:


> awesome suggestion, it looks like luminus has the same graph for the sst-50 and fir the sst-90. I assumed that an R3 would have similar output to an R2 and according to the data sheet graph it looked like roughly 80% of the light was emmitted out of the forward 60 degrees (30 degrees each way of 0). The luminus sst LEDs appeared slightly better at 85-90%. The problem is now that the SST-50 runs 550 lumens at 100% of its luminous flux at about 1.8 amps and the sst-90 runs at 1000 lumens at 3.2 amps (100%) assuming this is correct and cree and luminus measure lumens the same way....I need to purchase an SST-90 immediately as waiting for the xpg is now pointless. I do not know what the XP-Gs pull as far as amperage goes, but when I look at 122 lumens compared to 550, all I worry about is heat sinking. (I think this is what you were going for, and both LEDs had similar spatial distribution graphs, the SSTs winning by a little. The lumens though made the SSTs the clear winner in my book. I hope someone has a good counterpoint/correction to this because it doesn't seem right.



The XP-G outputs 122 lumens at just 350ma (R3 bin) or about 300 at 1A(345 is what the press release said, but that was either R4 or R5 bin depending whether 345 was the minimum or maximum value). The SST-50 and the SST-90 have much larger dies that will be a lot more difficult to focus compared to the XP-G.


----------



## SFG2Lman

lolzertank said:


> The XP-G outputs 122 lumens at just 350ma (R3 bin) or about 300 at 1A(345 is what the press release said, but that was either R4 or R5 bin depending whether 345 was the minimum or maximum value). The SST-50 and the SST-90 have much larger dies that will be a lot more difficult to focus compared to the XP-G.




its still gotta be easier than the MC-E or P7 and a good aspheric should do the trick right? (pardon my newbiness I'm just excited about these LEDs) Or we could just go in the style of M60F and get a "Wall o Light":twothumbs


----------



## lolzertank

Actually, the P7 and MC-E might be easier than the SST-90 thanks to the SST-90's die just being so large.


----------



## SFG2Lman

but sst-90 is brighter according to the datasheets, is this truth or am I reading them wrong? (i want to ask lots of questions b4 buying something this time)


----------



## lolzertank

SFG2Lman said:


> but sst-90 is brighter according to the datasheets, is this truth or am I reading them wrong? (i want to ask lots of questions b4 buying something this time)



It's true. Actually, at 9A it's supposed to output 2250 lumens. I'm just talking about the difficulty of collimating the SST-90's light into a tight spot since it has a large die.


----------



## SFG2Lman

i'm off to make a p60 sst-90 drop...hopefully my batts can hold up to the demands of the light, i'll worry about trying to focus it after I have more lumens than any single die SF has ever seen lovecpf


----------



## HarryN

Hi, look carefully at those data sheets. Lumens are good, but surface brightness is even better. At 5 amps, I would go with the 50, not the 90.


----------



## Calina

Could we stay on topic please?

If you want opinions about the SST vs the XP-G you should start a new thread.


----------



## SFG2Lman

good idea, my apologies, excitement and curiousity got the best of me


----------



## frosty

Anyone have an idea of when these might be available for the mainstream products?


----------



## saabluster

frosty said:


> Anyone have an idea of when these might be available for the mainstream products?


Probably a month or two.


----------



## ANDREAS FERRARI

frosty said:


> Anyone have an idea of when these might be available for the mainstream products?





saabluster said:


> Probably a month or two.



Really!?!? I'm dreaming of a XP-G pill for my DBS.But I thought I would have to wait until next year.

saabluster-I'll assume you have your hands on these and have started testing.Can you tell me the minimum voltage requirements and the predicted lumens.

Can they be run on a single 18650?


----------



## frosty

That's what I was hoping. I think I'll hold off any more purchases until these start appearing in the likes of Fenix etc.


----------



## Th232

Hi Saabluster, short question, if you're allowed to answer, that is. If you put the XP-G sample you have behind an aspheric, does it send more light forward than, say, an XR-E R2? I'm curious about the increase in brightness required before it cancels the lower percentage of light that's projected forward.


----------



## KDOG3

I'm definetly chompin at the bit here to see what this can do. Even if the Surefire KXx, LXx, etc optics don't work well with (I hope they do) I'm sure we can find some reflectors that will work with it and fit in the surefire heads.


----------



## saabluster

Th232 said:


> Hi Saabluster, short question, if you're allowed to answer, that is. If you put the XP-G sample you have behind an aspheric, does it send more light forward than, say, an XR-E R2? I'm curious about the increase in brightness required before it cancels the lower percentage of light that's projected forward.


If you mean percentage wise then no. I have not tested to see if overall lumens is higher OTF. I have my doubts.


----------



## saabluster

ANDREAS FERRARI said:


> Really!?!? I'm dreaming of a XP-G pill for my DBS.But I thought I would have to wait until next year.
> 
> saabluster-I'll assume you have your hands on these and have started testing.Can you tell me the minimum voltage requirements and the predicted lumens.
> 
> Can they be run on a single 18650?


Believe it or not I have not done any extensive tests yet. The Vf is lower than the XP-E comparing the two data sheets but I am unsure if I can say by how much without getting in trouble. I'm sure nothing would happen if I said something but I'd rather not risk it.


----------



## TORCH_BOY

This makes me wanting to Build lights again


----------



## spencer

When does the NDA lift? When the product releases? If so then you just said you guessed a couple months. I hope they release soon.


----------



## TORCH_BOY

*Re: Another big announcement from CREE*



jzmtl said:


> Ah crap, that means all my lights will soon be outdated.



My lights are already outdated!! Have to get one of these


----------



## xenonk

ANDREAS FERRARI said:


> Really!?!? I'm dreaming of a XP-G pill for my DBS.But I thought I would have to wait until next year.


I expect the move from an XR to XP emitter package will also require a new reflector, but I'd still buy it.


----------



## saabluster

xenonk said:


> I expect the move from an XR to XP emitter package will also require a new reflector, but I'd still buy it.


There is no need for a new reflector.


----------



## Nitroz

saabluster said:


> There is no need for a new reflector.



Really! How well does it focus in a mag reflector? Does it focus as tight as a Lux III?

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## saabluster

Nitroz said:


> Really! How well does it focus in a mag reflector? Does it focus as tight as a Lux III?
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.


I do not have a mag(I know) so I cannot say that I have tried it but it is pretty easy to deduce just by knowing the basic facts about the XP-G. Its die is larger so it will have a larger hotspot. I see absolutely no reason it would not focus in mag as it is not significantly different than the XP-E.


----------



## Phyltre

Let's just all remember the important priority issue here: a generally available P60 drop. 

By the end of the week I'll have a testbed for 1-2x18650--I expect these new drops to show up well before 60 days, that I may test them. This pleases me.


----------



## Nitroz

saabluster said:


> I do not have a mag(I know) so I cannot say that I have tried it but it is pretty easy to deduce just by knowing the basic facts about the XP-G. Its die is larger so it will have a larger hotspot. I see absolutely no reason it would not focus in mag as it is not significantly different than the XP-E.



Cool! I have some XP-E's so I will see how they look in the Mag, Thanks!


----------



## Gene43

The XP-E focuses down to a fine point in a Mag reflector.


----------



## Nitroz

Gene43 said:


> The XP-E focuses down to a fine point in a Mag reflector.




Thanks Mag Master!


----------



## lolzertank

Prices are up on Arrow: http://app.arrownac.com/aws/pg_webc?s=P No stock yet. :mecry:

It looks like it's actually CHEAPER than the XP-E. Anyone want to leak a datasheet for us so we can decipher the bin codes? (I'm looking at you, Saabluster.)

I wonder why the 1000 quantity price is almost the same as the singles prices. That could mean either a) the singles bins are bad, b) the 1000 quantity price is for a special bin, or c) the prices aren't correct. I know Future Electronics once mixed up the 250+ price with the singles price for the Rebels, so maybe this is happening to Arrow too. :thinking:


----------



## Nitroz

lolzertank said:


> Prices are up on Arrow: http://app.arrownac.com/aws/pg_webc?s=P No stock yet. :mecry:




That link is dead now?? Hmmm.... Here we go. http://app.arrownac.com/aws/pg_webc?search_token=xpg&event=1009&appid=nac&application=SEARCH


----------



## rav

lolzertank said:


> Prices are up on Arrow: http://app.arrownac.com/aws/pg_webc?s=P No stock yet. :mecry:
> 
> It looks like it's actually CHEAPER than the XP-E. Anyone want to leak a datasheet for us so we can decipher the bin codes? (I'm looking at you, Saabluster.)



bin code E51 -- XPG R2 >114lm 5000-10000K (full rank, without selection)
F51 -- XPG R3 >122lm
G51 -- XPG R4 >130lm
G53 -- XPG R4 >[email protected] ([email protected]) 5000-7000K :naughty:

The prices aren't correct, especially for single units.


----------



## lolzertank

rav said:


> bin code E51 -- XPG R2 >114lm 5000-10000K (full rank, without selection)
> F51 -- XPG R3 >122lm
> G51 -- XPG R4 >130lm
> G53 -- XPG R4 >[email protected] ([email protected]) 5000-7000K :naughty:
> 
> The prices aren't correct, especially for single units.



I want some of those R4 bins  Where did you get these values? Are you one of the very fortunate people with samples? If so, we will now start bothering you so you'll tell us more... [makes evil sound] :devil:. 

The $5 price didn't seem right to me either, but I figured it was somewhat plausible if Lumileds could price their Rebel 0100s (about Q5-R2 efficiency) at $4.71. :duh2:


----------



## saabluster

rav said:


> bin code E51 -- XPG R2 >114lm 5000-10000K (full rank, without selection)
> F51 -- XPG R3 >122lm
> G51 -- XPG R4 >130lm
> G53 -- XPG R4 >[email protected] ([email protected]) 5000-7000K :naughty:
> 
> The prices aren't correct, especially for single units.


Beat me to it. I guess you are in the industry then?


----------



## rav

saabluster said:


> Beat me to it. I guess you are in the industry then?



:nana::nana::nana:


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

I smell fish!

So, we are nearing availability! I'm excited, I think


----------



## lolzertank

bshanahan14rulz said:


> ...I think



Blasphemy! How can't you be excited! 

Time to start saving $$$


----------



## LEDAdd1ct

I will take one 345 lumen piece in cool white for those times when I feel like showing off, and one less bright warm tinted piece for every other occasion. 

...tick tock...tick tock.......P60 dropin, I am waiting for you...


----------



## Burgess

I hereby predict . . . .



The *moment* these new items are announced as "Shipping",


it will take *3.472 seconds* for someone to post the question:



*" WhatAboutAWarmTintVersion ? ? ? "*




_


----------



## xenonk

Burgess said:


> it will take *3.472 seconds* for someone to post the question:
> *" WhatAboutAWarmTintVersion ? ? ? "*


I'll ask right now. Neutral R2 please.


----------



## lolzertank

*WhatAboutAWarmTintVersion ? ? ?

*Burgess, you're off by many days.
Neutral R3 and Warm R2 please.


----------



## KDOG3

Concerning the XPG would a P60 drop ing delivering 200lumen OTF be ok to run in a nitrolon light like the G2? I'm thinking the drive current would be low enough that it would be possible.


----------



## ANDREAS FERRARI

LEDAdd1ct said:


> I will take one 345 lumen piece in cool white for those times when I feel like showing off.......



For me that's most of the time.....LOL

I'm still running my DBS on an old dim Q5!

I'll take a snow white R4 please.:twothumbs


----------



## LEDAdd1ct

Will the R4 bin be rare/hard to find, or will it be common and just cost a bit more?


----------



## zen bicycle

Any chance of having a meetup for those of us that are local to you?

:bow::thanks:


saabluster said:


> Probably a month or two.


----------



## lolzertank

KDOG3 said:


> Concerning the XPG would a P60 drop ing delivering 200lumen OTF be ok to run in a nitrolon light like the G2? I'm thinking the drive current would be low enough that it would be possible.



For 200 lumens OTF, even with the best optics you'll still need about 250 emitter lumens. That would be around a 700ma drive level, which definitely still needs good heatsinking.


----------



## Yoda4561

Assuming the Malkoff M60L Q5 as an "upper range" on what's really safe to run in a nitrolon light, an R2 bin XPG might get you around 170 lumens. 200 is stretching it a bit but if you don't run the light for more than 10 or 15 minutes at a time it should be fine.


----------



## txg

these LEDs seem to be so great...

imagine a triple xp-g light with a carclo 20mm reflector and a single 18650 li-ion with a boost driver (leds in series)...

i've been playing around with the numbers, and here is what you approximately will get with a 2,5Ah battery and 85% efficiency of the driver:

high, 1000mA - 1035 Lumens for 45mins
at least a little bit [email protected] - 400 Lumens for 2 hours 24 mins

although thermal management is definitely needed, this light should be the best that is possible today, considering output and runtime compared to size.

what do you think of that? I would like to build my own, anybody has an idea for a host?


----------



## lolzertank

The Carclo optics are only 85% efficient, so in reality you'll less lumens.


----------



## Curt R

TXG

The power to the LEDs would be about 11 watts and the voltage boost to the LEDs would be from 3.5 battery volts from a single 18650 to the LEDs of about 11 volts. That would then be an efficiency of closer to 65% from the electronics not 85%. The power draw from the battery would then be about 17 watts and the capacity of the battery at that draw rate would be maybe 2000 mAh with a good new battery. The battery would need to put out 5 amps of current. You might get 20-25 minutes run of time. You would also need an unprotected 18650 battery from AW.

Curt


----------



## PhantomPhoton

I think TXG may have meant LEDs in parallel. oo:


----------



## txg

Curt R understood it the right way, i was talking about the leds in series. 65% doesn't look that good...where are your numbers from? 

I was also thinking about direct drive with a 18650 or three eneloops, but the forward voltage of the xp-g is too low, and with an added resistor, efficiency is in the same range as with a driver...


----------



## Curt R

txg

I constantly monitor 13 manufacturers of ICs for the lights that I design and build for Peak. A buck circuit is slightly more efficient than a boost circuit and that of a flyback circuit. By taking a look at the data sheet info graphs as the voltage difference increases between input and output the efficiency decreases, and as the current output increases circuit efficiency decreases and as temperature increases circuit components change values as does efficiency. When they give efficiency numbers for their circuits it is done under ideal lab conditions and not in the confined location of a flashlight head. The same results apply to batteries and LEDs. More is less. In the real world apart from the latest and greatest new advancement in LED tech we must contend with optic efficiency with that LED, optic change ratio of Lumens to Candela, thermal management, electronics, batteries and package size. I get a kick when I see the banter about one LED vs. another as far as this one has 10% more Lumen output than this other one. I am asked why I am not using the latest LED in my designs. That may or may not result in a better light or it may be a lessor light when everything is assembled into a flashlight. Sorry to be blunt, but that is what I see from my point of view.

Optics many times is far more important in real world output than the small difference in LED Lumen output between one LED and another. When there is a large jump in output as say a Lux 1 to a Lux 3 to a K2 then there is a reason for development and change as long as the optics can support the LED change. 

When a company designs a optic for a LED it is normally for a size range of LEDs and they say that you can use that optic for the entire group of LEDs, such as a Cree XR-E, XP-E, Seoul P4, Luxeon 1, 3, K2 and Rebel as in the Carclo 26 mm 10048. The Lumen to Candela ratio changes with different LEDs. Lux K2 is 48 to 1,Rebel 45 to 1, Seoul P4 is 27 to 1 and the Cree XR-E is 14 to 1. If we drive each LED to 100 Lumens the output in Candela, (Candlepower or foot-candles), the result is 4500 fc for the Rebel to 1400 fc for the Cree. With the Carclo 20 mm 10193 optic the ratio for the XP-E is 36 to 1, Rebel 32 to 1, and the big high power Cree MC-E is 6 to 1 as is the Seoul P7. The Cree MC-E must output 533 Lumens to equal the output of 100 Lumens from the XP-E for the same Candela results. Yes the MC-E is putting out much more total light but the same intensity on an object at say 50 feet distance. Lumens is the result of all light being produced, Candela is the maximum light at a point on an object at distance. 

Curt


----------



## saabluster

Curt R said:


> txg
> 
> I constantly monitor 13 manufacturers of ICs for the lights that I design and build for Peak. A buck circuit is slightly more efficient than a boost circuit and that of a flyback circuit. By taking a look at the data sheet info graphs as the voltage difference increases between input and output the efficiency decreases, and as the current output increases circuit efficiency decreases and as temperature increases circuit components change values as does efficiency. When they give efficiency numbers for their circuits it is done under ideal lab conditions and not in the confined location of a flashlight head. The same results apply to batteries and LEDs. More is less. In the real world apart from the latest and greatest new advancement in LED tech we must contend with optic efficiency with that LED, optic change ratio of Lumens to Candela, thermal management, electronics, batteries and package size. I get a kick when I see the banter about one LED vs. another as far as this one has 10% more Lumen output than this other one. I am asked why I am not using the latest LED in my designs. That may or may not result in a better light or it may be a lessor light when everything is assembled into a flashlight. Sorry to be blunt, but that is what I see from my point of view.
> 
> Optics many times is far more important in real world output than the small difference in LED Lumen output between one LED and another. When there is a large jump in output as say a Lux 1 to a Lux 3 to a K2 then there is a reason for development and change as long as the optics can support the LED change.
> 
> When a company designs a optic for a LED it is normally for a size range of LEDs and they say that you can use that optic for the entire group of LEDs, such as a Cree XR-E, XP-E, Seoul P4, Luxeon 1, 3, K2 and Rebel as in the Carclo 26 mm 10048. The Lumen to Candela ratio changes with different LEDs. Lux K2 is 43 to 1,Rebel 45 to 1, Seoul P4 is 27 to 1 and the Cree XR-E is 14 to 1. If we drive each LED to 100 Lumens the output in Candela, (Candlepower or foot-candles), the result is 4500 fc for the Rebel to 1400 fc for the Cree. With the Carclo 20 mm 10193 optic the ratio for the XP-E is 36 to 1, Rebel 32 to 1, and the big high power Cree MC-E is 6 to 1 as is the Seoul P7. The Cree MC-E must output 533 Lumens to equal the output of 100 Lumens from the XP-E for the same Candela results. Yes the MC-E is putting out much more total light but the same intensity on an object at say 50 feet distance. Lumens is the result of all light being produced, Candela is the maximum light at a point on an object at distance.
> 
> Curt


I had no idea you worked in the industry. Are you your own company or an employee of Peak. Not sure what you meant by "I design and build for Peak".:thumbsup:


----------



## Sgt. LED

I think he IS Peak.


----------



## BentHeadTX

Curt is the designer of flashlights for Peak. When you call them, he can answer your questions "from the horses mouth" so to speak.


----------



## Burgess

to Curt_R --


Welcome to CandlePowerForums !


:welcome:


_


----------



## saabluster

BentHeadTX said:


> Curt is the designer of flashlights for Peak. When you call them, he can answer your questions "from the horses mouth" so to speak.


Oh yeah.Now I remember. Sorry about that Curt.


----------



## ANDREAS FERRARI

Interesting info Curt R!I was just at the Peak website and I must say the *Eiger AAA/10440SS has caught my eye.
*


----------



## mcbsteve

I'm not a technical guy and I haven't looked here in a while but I am excited to buy the next new super bright thrower. Anyone know when we will start seeing these available?


----------



## lolzertank

mcbsteve said:


> I'm not a technical guy and I haven't looked here in a while but I am excited to buy the next new super bright thrower. Anyone know when we will start seeing these available?



They already are. The surface brightness of the XP-G is no better than the XP-E since its die is twice the size of the XP-E. It's actually worse if you're just looking at lumens per mm^2 per watt.

Floody lights on the other hand will get quite a bit better.


----------



## AardvarkSagus

Is it really twice the size? I thought it was only a fraction larger. Less than half again was what I thought.


----------



## xenonk

AardvarkSagus said:


> Less than half again was what I thought.


In two directions.

XP-G: 1.4mm * 1.4mm = ~2mm²
XR-E: 1mm * 1mm = 1mm²


----------



## LEDAdd1ct

lolzertank said:


> The surface brightness of the XP-G is no better than the XP-E since its die is twice the size of the XP-E.





AardvarkSagus said:


> Is it really twice the size? I thought it was only a fraction larger. Less than half again was what I thought.





xenonk said:


> In two directions.
> 
> XP-G: 1.4mm * 1.4mm = ~2mm²
> XR-E: 1mm * 1mm = 1mm²



Are we comparing apples to oranges? lolzertank compared XP-E to XP-G, but xenok compared XR-E to XP-G...*scratches head*...


----------



## tsask

Thanks Curt for that well written informative post. WTG Peak!


----------



## saabluster

LEDAdd1ct said:


> Are we comparing apples to oranges? lolzertank compared XP-E to XP-G, but xenok compared XR-E to XP-G...*scratches head*...


When talking about surface brightness and die size, which they were, it is _not_ apples and oranges because the XR-E and XP-E both use the exact same die.


----------



## spencer

LEDAdd1ct said:


> Are we comparing apples to oranges? lolzertank compared XP-E to XP-G, but xenok compared XR-E to XP-G...*scratches head*...


The XP-E and the XR-E use the same die. Although we can't really say that anymore because some of the new XR-E's use a smaller die. 0.9mmm^2 if I recall.


----------



## xenonk

I typed XR-E by reflex as I was thinking of the EZ1000. 
The XP-E is the same thing in smaller packaging.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct

saabluster said:


> When talking about surface brightness and die size, which they were, it is _not_ apples and oranges because the XR-E and XP-E both use the exact same die.





spencer said:


> The XP-E and the XR-E use the same die. Although we can't really say that anymore because some of the new XR-E's use a smaller die. 0.9mmm^2 if I recall.



Ahh, okay; thank you for clearing that up.


----------



## IMSabbel

spencer said:


> The XP-E and the XR-E use the same die. Although we can't really say that anymore because some of the new XR-E's use a smaller die. 0.9mmm^2 if I recall.



aint it 0.81mm^2?
Makes that exactly 2.5 times larger.


----------



## steinstern

i just tried to find out, but 9 pages are to much for me today. :duh2:


- how much more light will we get of 1AA powered lights with the xp-g (compared to q5)

- will there really be a notable difference?

- when can we expect the fist lights with xp-g emitters? 1 month? 2,3,4,5?!


----------



## spencer

From here:


uplite said:


> According to the numbers that CREE presented in May, when you move from the *XP-E R2* to the *XP-G R4* you get:
> 
> 14% brighter @ 350mA
> ~4% lower Vf @ 350mA
> so, *19% more lumens/watt @ 350mA*
> 
> Not a very large step. The real jump comes when you run higher currents, e.g. for installation lighting. Then you get:
> 
> 22% brighter @ 700mA
> ~5% lower Vf @ 700mA
> so, *28% more lumens/watt @ 700mA*



So going from an R2 XP-E to an R4 XP-G you get 14% more light at 350mA. You asked specifically about a Q5. I would guess an XP-G would be nearly 20% brighter.


----------



## BentHeadTX

I thought an R4 put out 132 lumens per watt
Q5 puts out 94 lumens per watt so won't an R4 be 40% brighter?
Then add in the 5% lower Vf so you'll gain 47%, that is something to wait for in my book. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, please!


----------



## steinstern

hey, thanks for this informations, spencer...

but how long will it take untill we see these emitters in flashlights?

im really looking forward to an ezaa xp-g :naughty:


how long will it take ?!


----------



## Nitroz

steinstern said:


> hey, thanks for this informations, spencer...
> 
> but how long will it take untill we see these emitters in flashlights?
> 
> im really looking forward to an ezaa xp-g :naughty



The Ti Quarks from 4sevens will have the R4 XP-G.:thumbsup: Should begin shipping the end of September.(Fingers crossed)


----------



## ergotelis

Cutter has them for preorder.Stock comes 25sept.


----------



## jashhash

Looks like you can pre order an R4 bin for $5.43


----------



## znomit

jashhash said:


> Looks like you can pre order an R4 bin for $5.43



I wonder if that price is correct, its barely more than the XP-E
:rock:


----------



## jashhash

Just ordered ten R4 bin XP-G. Anyone have an idea what driver to use? I'm thinking about this driver from DX to test it out: http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.10852


----------



## ergotelis

How are you sure it is R4? It doesn't say anywhere binning and tint...


----------



## znomit

ergotelis said:


> How are you sure it is R4? It doesn't say anywhere binning and tint...



Its on the order page.
http://cutter.com.au/products.php?cat=Cree+XPG

Board options are up now too guys

Lets see, XPG407S
7 in series on a 40mm board. 

:twothumbs


----------



## jtr1962

ergotelis said:


> How are you sure it is R4? It doesn't say anywhere binning and tint...


http://www.cutter.com.au/proddetail.php?prod=cut937

There's a dropdown box for R2, R3, or R4 bins. R2 is currently listed at 5.03 USD, R3 at 5.23 USD, and R4 at 5.43 USD. No choice of tint bins however.


----------



## ergotelis

Omg i have to order too! When i visited the page there was not so many info! I hate you all!


----------



## CampingLED

znomit said:


> Its on the order page.
> http://cutter.com.au/products.php?cat=Cree+XPG
> 
> Board options are up now too guys
> 
> Lets see, XPG407S
> 7 in series on a 40mm board.
> 
> :twothumbs


 
Will appreciate it if someone can explain the other light engine options as well???

XPG10SQ - My guess, 10mm Square with one LED (what about a round option)?
XPGMR8SER - Two of them (+0.95 & +14.00)?
XPG20STR
XPGMR11T
XPGMR8IAD
XPG25SQ 

When looking at the prices and descriptions, I am confused as to what is offered.


----------



## ergotelis

CampingLED said:


> Will appreciate it if someone can explain the other light engine options as well???
> 
> XPG10SQ - My guess, 10mm Square with one LED (what about a round option)?
> XPGMR8SER - Two of them (+0.95 & +14.00)?
> XPG20STR
> XPGMR11T
> XPGMR8IAD
> XPG25SQ
> 
> When looking at the prices and descriptions, I am confused as to what is offered.



Check the other tabs on that page,especially the one "xpg on mcpcb". Everything is described fine! :twothumbs


----------



## LEDAdd1ct

jtr1962 said:


> http://www.cutter.com.au/proddetail.php?prod=cut937
> 
> There's a dropdown box for R2, R3, or R4 bins. R2 is currently listed at 5.03 USD, R3 at 5.23 USD, and R4 at 5.43 USD. No choice of tint bins however.



My guess is tint bin choices will come a bit later.

Since the lowest available XP-G flux bin is R2, does that mean all the warm and neutral tints some of us know and love will be available in a *minimum* of R2?


----------



## rizky_p

finally a worthy upgrade for my penta cree mag...i hope it is somewhat compatible with XR-E reflector.


----------



## CampingLED

ergotelis said:


> Check the other tabs on that page,especially the one "xpg on mcpcb". Everything is described fine! :twothumbs


 
Thanks, I was looking @ this link http://cutter.com.au/products.php?cat=Cree+XPG. And not this one http://cutter.com.au/proddetail.php?prod=cut937


----------



## jashhash

all of your xp-g are belongs to CPF.


----------



## Takeshi_Kovacs

Is there any indication from manufactures such as Jetbeam, Fenix, Eagletac etc, as to when they will be using Cree XP-G and selling them?


----------



## Takeshi_Kovacs

edited


----------



## WeLight

We expect Cree to release the datasheet soon on the web site with more details on bins.


----------



## Nitroz

Takeshi_Kovacs said:


> Is there any indication from manufactures such as Jetbeam, Fenix, Eagletac etc, as to when they will be using Cree XP-G and selling them?



Here you go! This is the Ti Quark from 4sevens with an r4 XP-G.


----------



## tedsti

So it is looking like $17.26 USD for 3 R4 on a 20mm PCB at cutter. When I price out 3 R2 XPE on the same board it is $28.98. Am I doing something wrong? I am not complaining, just want to make sure I get the right thing.


----------



## coolperl

tedsti said:


> So it is looking like $17.26 USD for 3 R4 on a 20mm PCB at cutter. When I price out 3 R2 XPE on the same board it is $28.98. Am I doing something wrong? I am not complaining, just want to make sure I get the right thing.



Didn't you forget about shipping ?


----------



## kan3

coolperl said:


> Didn't you forget about shipping ?



I believe he asking why 3 brand new XPG on a star come out to $17 and 3 older R2 come out being almost $10 more on a similar star. At least that's the impression I got from his question.

I would assume it's either because they are on pre-order and discounted or because their site is wrong.


----------



## lolzertank

Or... they're CHEAPER! That would be a great step toward getting LED lighting into everyone's houses. That combined with the increased efficiency of the R4 XP-G effectively lowers the price to about a quarter of the R2 XR-Es for the same amount of light at the same efficiency.


----------



## coolperl

kan3 said:


> I believe he asking why 3 brand new XPG on a star come out to $17 and 3 older R2 come out being almost $10 more on a similar star. At least that's the impression I got from his question.
> 
> I would assume it's either because they are on pre-order and discounted or because their site is wrong.



The price difference is in PCB only, the LEDs alone, have similiar price tags.


----------



## tedsti

kan3 said:


> I believe he asking why 3 brand new XPG on a star come out to $17 and 3 older R2 come out being almost $10 more on a similar star. At least that's the impression I got from his question.
> 
> I would assume it's either because they are on pre-order and discounted or because their site is wrong.


Thanks Kan3, I should have been more clear. I was just surprised to see the XPG being cheaper and wanted to make sure it was correct.


----------



## kan3

coolperl said:


> The price difference is in PCB only, the LEDs alone, have similiar price tags.



As of yesterday to today the price of the XPE R2 Bin has dropped over $1.50ea on their site.

It is now almost $5 cheaper for the 3x XPE on pcb - $22.xx vs $26.xx yesterday


----------



## lolzertank

I just realized I have a spare triple 10mm optic left over from another project... XP-G R4 triple star (or two), here I come!


----------



## old4570

XP-G is cheaper than XR-E just talked to them on the phone ...

Will buy a R3 and a R4 just to see oo: , especially as a XR-E R2 driven hard put's out more light than the XP-E , not taking into account the small factor at all .


----------



## LEDAdd1ct

...and the drool puddle gets bigger...


----------



## copperfox

Anyone know if there is going to be an XR-G?

That is, the XR-E package with the new and improved die?

Failing that, is there a fool-proof way to mod an XR-E star with an XP-E and retain the same focus? (I would imagine that the XP-E would have to be raised up to be at the same level).


----------



## lolzertank

With tons of people in the electronics industry soldering 0402 resistors and QFN/BGA ICs in their $20000 reflow ovens, XP-Gs are a piece of cake. Sadly for us, this probably means that there will be no XR-G. It's not as if the XR-E was meant to be hand soldered either.

At least 4 XP-G dies won't fit in the XP package...  Bring on the MC-G!


----------



## CampingLED

copperfox said:


> Anyone know if there is going to be an XR-G?
> 
> That is, the XR-E package with the new and improved die?
> 
> Failing that, is there a fool-proof way to mod an XR-E star with an XP-E and retain the same focus? (I would imagine that the XP-E would have to be raised up to be at the same level).


 
Many years ago Canon changed their camera mount from MF to AF as it was required to position itself better for future enhancements. I think that Cree may just follow the same approach when it comes to the XR range, since many people complained about the Cree rings.


----------



## Th232

Hmm... I know this kinda goes hand in hand with the Cree rings, but does that mean we'll lose the narrower FWHM altogether, or will something replace that?

My aspheric lens is hoping for the latter...


----------



## copperfox

I can see the logic in that. I don't like cree rings either. I just thought that since the XR-E already has such wide usage, using the XR-E package would allow companies to use the same secondary optics that they engineered or purchased specifically for the XR-E.

Plus, it would make flashlight upgrades easier for us flashaholic DIYers. :ironic:


----------



## JohnR66

CampingLED said:


> Many years ago Canon changed their camera mount from MF to AF as it was required to position itself better for future enhancements. I think that Cree may just follow the same approach when it comes to the XR range, since many people complained about the Cree rings.



Not the LED die itself, but the package of the XP-E/G as compared to the XR-E looks to be cheaper to produce. The dome over the die looks greatly simplified. I just bought some Q5 XP-Es for about $2 less than I paid for Q5 XR-Es a year ago. Although the XR-E are less now too, perhaps the lower manufacturing costs will finally get these LEDs into mainstream lighting products more than ever before.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

the move from xr package to xp package seems obvious, really. 

XR package:
ceramic substrate
metal tracings
a layer of insulation/paint
a layer for adhesion to metal ring
metal ring
fill metal ring with some special jelly (probably un-colored grape; strawberry has too many seeds)
vacuum-seal a glass dome on top

XP package
ceramic substrate (smaller area too, so less $$$)
metal tracings
a layer of insulation/paint
silicon dome

Instead of mounting a metal ring to the substrate, filling it with gel, securing the glass dome w/ no bubbles, they can simply pop a mold on top and dump some silicone in it. I'm willing to bet silicon is less expensive than metal, optical gel, and glass lenses

I like the xp package, more of a standard beam pattern. Not so great for our aspheric friends... but they'll find a way. at least they have a brighter source.


----------



## jasonsmaglites

im slowly starting to let all this sink in. the new xpg r4 thats out is awesome, and is capable of higher outputs and more efficency. does it have the same max power input because its bigger, or is it the same size and just loses less efficency at higher drive currents.


----------



## Metatron

saabluster said:


> I had no idea you worked in the industry. Are you your own company or an employee of Peak. Not sure what you meant by "I design and build for Peak".:thumbsup:


OOPS


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

I think efficiency has a sort of inverse relation with current/mm^2


----------



## Freeze_XJ

On one hand, yes... See the excellent post of MadCow that is still valid.  with the small sidenote that only extra N-doping increases conductivity, and P-doping only restricts it a bit... Holes move a lot slower than electrons...  

Summarizing his post, higher current density means more 'dark recombination' means less efficiency. This can be seen in almost any LED you can get your hands on, efficiency @ 1 A is a lot lower than @350mA. (hence the standard measurements)

If they managed to make the XP-G better at 1A, it means they somehow made dark recombination a lot less likely, i have no idea how (doping change? Better way of applying dope? You name it). It's nice though, most lights @ max are driven at high currents, and will become even brighter


----------



## Kinnza

Its possible Cree has followed Osram using a larger die, as the Diamond Dragon, which uses a 2 sq mm one, in order to enhance the thermal pad and improve the work at higher currents (due the lowered current density).

We will know when they release the datasheet


----------



## lolzertank

Freeze_XJ and Kinnza, Cree uses a 2mm^2 die in the XP-G. It still performs better at 1A than 2 XR-Es at 500ma though, indicating that there are other changes as well.


----------



## jsholli

So will a 2mm^2 die will be larger than the current XR-E dimensions? Looking forward to these regardlessly...


----------



## jsholli

I just answered my own question... a 2mm^2 die appears to be in current XR-E and even the old Lux III---at least that's what my micrometer shows.

So, unless there is a dome change, I'm expecting these to be a direct fit.

John


----------



## znomit

jsholli said:


> I just answered my own question... a 2mm^2 die appears to be in current XR-E and even the old Lux III---at least that's what my micrometer shows.
> 
> So, unless there is a dome change, I'm expecting these to be a direct fit.
> 
> John



The XP-G die is 1.4x1.4mm = 2 square mm
The XR-E/XP-E/P4/P7s use 1x1mm (in some cases now 0.9x0.9).
The dome distorts the apparent size so you need to rip it off to measure properly.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

lolzertank said:


> It still performs better at 1A than 2 XR-Es at 500ma though, indicating that there are other changes as well.



perhaps. maybe not. I really liked that fellow MadCow's post, but the guy only posted once! I'm thinking a combo of an increased surface area with the same doping levels SHOULD look like it performs betterat 1A than 2 1mm^2 dice at 500mA. It just seems like one of those relationships that should be exponential since area is in units squared. It is kind of late, though....

I'm just excited for the lumens 

Side-note, OT: I have a DD dropin with a P4 bin LED. Always wondered why I couldn't tell much difference comparedto my Q3 5A. Turns out, the Q3 was being driven at 900mA while the P4 was being driven at 2A. I'm surprised it has survived this long. Forgive me, though, I just wanted to share, didn't feel like it was worth making a new thread.


----------



## Kinnza

lolzertank said:


> Freeze_XJ and Kinnza, Cree uses a 2mm^2 die in the XP-G. It still performs better at 1A than 2 XR-Es at 500ma though, indicating that there are other changes as well.



Thank you very much for confirming it, lolzertank.

I agreed, for sure there is more changes than the die's size. Diamond Dragons dont perform as well compared with Osram Golden Dragons, so apart of the enhanced efficiency at high current densities, its clear that they use new improvements on the XP-G.

I cant wait until the XP-G is on sale!


----------



## KuKu427

Sorry if this is off topic. I need one or two XP-Gs for R&D. Doesn't matter what bin, new or used. Can someone point me in the right directions. Thanks!


----------



## saabluster

KuKu427 said:


> Sorry if this is off topic. I need one or two XP-Gs for R&D. Doesn't matter what bin, new or used. Can someone point me in the right directions. Thanks!


Cree. They have a sample program for those in the industry.


----------



## tedsti

I just put my order in for 3 triple stars and optics from cutter. Now I just have the agonizing wait.......


----------



## qip

SAAB ..now that cutter will sell them and they are coming, are you able to show us what you have done, beamshots, comparison vs q5-r2 etc


----------



## qwertyydude

I wonder when DX is gonna put these in a flashlight? They're pretty fast cramming new led's in older bodies.


----------



## saabluster

qip said:


> SAAB ..now that cutter will sell them and they are coming, are you able to show us what you have done, beamshots, comparison vs q5-r2 etc


I get some stuff up as soon as I can gather more info. Been extremely busy lately.


----------



## lolzertank

qwertyydude said:


> I wonder when DX is gonna put these in a flashlight? They're pretty fast cramming new led's in older bodies.



At least this time it'll be relatively easy to tell the difference. I wonder how many of the R2 bin XR-Es in DX lights right now are actually R2. With the XP-G, the increased die size should make it easier to see.


----------



## znomit

lolzertank said:


> At least this time it'll be relatively easy to tell the difference. I wonder how many of the R2 bin XR-Es in DX lights right now are actually R2. With the XP-G, the increased die size should make it easier to see.



Wont stop them telling porkies about the bin though :thumbsdow


----------



## tstartrekdude

so....the NDA is up now right...SPILL THE BEANS! i need to know everything NOW!


----------



## Burgess




----------



## spencer

Is the NDA actually up? Cree has no new info on their website.


----------



## tstartrekdude

hmmm, well cutters site says quote 
"The Cree XPG is releasing shortly and is being offered here on a pre order basis. We expect delivery into our store by September 25th 2009"

So from that i would think that info would be coming out today, but i guess not.... );


----------



## yellow

gone through the whole thread but remember relatively nothing to actual brightness.
is that correct:
instead of some _300-350 lm_, there is _"20 % more output to XR-E"_ now?

That is not the "jump" I hoped for, it is not even worth thinking to mod favorite lights from XR-E to XP-G.

:thinking:


----------



## RyanA

Right now I see it as sort of a middle ground between a 1mm2 chip and a 4 or 5mm2 chip. Maybe there will be some room to play with overdrive, I does have a pretty good size to it.


----------



## baterija

yellow said:


> gone through the whole thread but remember relatively nothing to actual brightness.
> is that correct:
> instead of some _300-350 lm_, there is _"20 % more output to XR-E"_ now?
> 
> That is not the "jump" I hoped for, it is not even worth thinking to mod favorite lights from XR-E to XP-G.
> 
> :thinking:



This isn't just a 2 bin increase in an X-RE from R2 to R4. Simply comparing the flux bins at 350 ma doesn't tell the whole story. What we can assume from statements Cree made (in the absence of a datasheet)
- Vf is lower so you should get longer runtimes at the same drive current
- droop is lower so the flux to forward current curve is not the same. A 20% difference at 350ma is going to lead you to bigger flux differences at higher currents.
- Lower Vf will also have some impact depending on the driver used. Staying in regulation for longer in a buck only circuit running off one Li-ion is one possible benefit.

Comparing a Q2 to Q4 binned XR-E was simple. All other things were basically equal and the flux bin was THE difference. The other factors are no longer all equal.


----------



## ANDREAS FERRARI

baterija said:


> Staying in regulation for longer in a buck only circuit running off one Li-ion is one possible benefit.



That's all I'm hoping for.:thumbsup:


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

smaller form size means smaller flashlights too


----------



## lolzertank

bshanahan14rulz said:


> smaller form size means smaller flashlights too



Nope, the XP-E and the Rebel have had this size for over a year now. Not to mention that batteries and optics tend to take up the most space, not the emitter.

In fact, the Drake and Lummi Wee, two of the smallest lights that use power emitters, don't even use an XP-E. They're still using the "big" XR-E.


----------



## uplite

Bottom line: There has been no real breakthrough in LED efficiency for a couple of years now. So we are just playing games with package size (xre vs xpe), die size (xpe vs xpg), and phosphors (tint).

The manufacturing processes and quality control get better...so we get higher flux bins... but it's very slow progress.

Still waiting for the next _real_ breakthrough in emitter tech... :tired:

-Jeff


----------



## 4sevens

uplite said:


> Bottom line: There has been no real breakthrough in LED efficiency for a couple of years now. So we are just playing games with package size (xre vs xpe), die size (xpe vs xpg), and phosphors (tint).
> The manufacturing processes and quality control get better...so we get higher flux bins... but it's very slow progress.
> Still waiting for the next _real_ breakthrough in emitter tech... :tired:
> -Jeff


Well, whip out your notebook and start taking notes because you're about to witness history in the making.


----------



## [email protected]

4sevens said:


> Well, whip out your notebook and start taking notes because you're about to witness history in the making.



It's those constantly teasing voices again! Arhhhh!


----------



## 4sevens

[email protected] said:


> It's those constantly teasing voices again! Arhhhh!


I ain't joking.


----------



## uplite

4sevens said:


> Well, whip out your notebook and start taking notes because you're about to witness history in the making.


That's a bold statement. :tired:

Any details? Cree, Lumileds, Luminus, someone else? This month, this year, next year? Lumens/watt?

FWIW I have two XP-E Quarks from 4sevens...I even put Quark in my sig because it seems like a decent value little light...but messages like this one make me worry that 4sevens has become all hype, no hop.

Put up or shut up, eh? 

-Jeff


----------



## 4sevens

uplite said:


> That's a bold statement. :tired:
> Any details? Cree, Lumileds, Luminus, someone else? This month, this year, next year? Lumens/watt?
> FWIW I have two XP-E Quarks from 4sevens...I even put Quark in my sig because it seems like a decent value little light...but messages like this one make me worry that 4sevens has become all hype, no hop.
> Put up or shut up, eh?
> -Jeff


I'm don't blame you calling it hype since I really haven't given you any information, 
but when the news hits the stands I guarantee you'll be picking up your jaw from off the ground.


----------



## TorchBoy

4sevens said:


> Well, whip out your notebook and start taking notes because you're about to witness history in the making.


Put me in the cynical camp. History is being made all the time, but most of the time that history just isn't very significant. I won't hold my breath (or take out my notebook) waiting for any particularly significant history to be made here.

Edit: But having seen the confidence you exude in your last post, I hope you're right. It's just that pessimists are never disappointed and it's hard to imagine anything quite that good.


----------



## uplite

:sleepy: Bring it on.

I hope these are not just beer-induced Saturday-night hallucinations from a 4sevens CSR... 

-Jeff


----------



## 4sevens

TorchBoy said:


> Put me in the cynical camp. History is being made all the time, but most of the time that history just isn't very significant. I won't hold my breath (or take out my notebook) waiting for any particularly significant history to be made here.
> 
> Edit: But having seen the confidence you exude in your last post, I hope you're right. It's just that pessimists are never disappointed and it's hard to imagine anything quite that good.


Well I don't plan to disappoint. I never do.

Put it this way. When the news came and I pulled the trigger on the
decision I was giddy like a kid all day Friday.


uplite said:


> :sleepy: Bring it on.
> I hope these are not just beer-induced Saturday-night hallucinations from a 4sevens CSR...
> -Jeff


haha. office is closed. I post on behalf of myself.


----------



## [email protected]

Well, anyone know how to invest in American shares for a minor in Australia? 

Edit: Sorry 4sevens. My last post did seem too harsh. I didn't mean it in a 'oh no this guy is driving me nuts' what I really meant was 'mhm really? Interesting'


----------



## uplite

4sevens said:


> haha. office is closed. I post on behalf of myself.


Whoa! Are you that little girl in the 4sevens avatar image? 



[email protected] said:


> Well, anyone know how to invest in American shares for a minor in Australia?


:huh2:

-Jeff


----------



## [email protected]

uplite said:


> Whoa! Are you that little girl in the 4sevens avatar image?
> 
> :huh2:
> 
> -Jeff



Mayby a small investment in Cree or Phillips might not be a bad idea.


----------



## ANDREAS FERRARI

4sevens said:


> I'm don't blame you calling it hype since I really haven't given you any information,
> but when the news hits the stands I guarantee you'll be picking up your jaw from off the ground.



That's just plain cruel.........

I don't currently own one of your lights but if my "jaw hits the ground" with the announcement I will be first in line.:thumbsup:

BTW-any hints.......


----------



## znomit

So, XR-E was released initially as 700mA max, XP-E currently as 700mA but rumour is it will be bumped to 1A. 
What do people think? 
Any chance the G will see an increase to 1.5A?


----------



## jtr1962

IMO there's going to be a lot more to it than bumps in rated current. I'm trying to put together bits and pieces of what I've read elsewhere and also in this thread. Based on all of this, I think it's fair to say you ain't seen nothing yet.

I think it goes something like this:

efficiency ^ > droop down > heat down > rated current ^ > lumens per emitter ^^ >


----------



## spencer

4sevens said:


> Well, whip out your notebook and start taking notes because you're about to witness history in the making.


What a dirty little statement. I realize you are probably still under NDA but that's just not a nice statement. If you could give us more info then that would be sweet. Can you at least give us a company name?


----------



## uplite

jtr1962 said:


> efficiency ^ > droop down > heat down > rated current ^ > lumens per emitter ^^ >


= a steaming heap of BS, until someone actually ships something. 

Seriously. Cree announced the XPG package almost half a year ago. Double the die area, and they projected it to be a whopping _12% brighter_ than XPE. Wow! NOT.  And it is still not generally available. :sleepy:

4sevens, you had better be right about a jaw-dropper...or you will lose all credibility here in the blink of an eye. 

-Jeff


----------



## js-lots

Well until that big news hits, I will keep taking those baby steps. I order a couple of those r4's on cutter a week ago. Hopefully they will have them in stock by today. I am curious to see how these perform. By the way do you guys think that these can be powered by a 1.4A board? Like this one from dealextreme http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.1886. Thanks


----------



## [email protected]

js-lots said:


> Well until that big news hits, I will keep taking those baby steps. I order a couple of those r4's on cutter a week ago. Hopefully they will have them in stock by today. I am curious to see how these perform.



Should I just take the bus to Cutter just to fine out?


----------



## tstartrekdude

*Insert empty threats here*

*insert 4sevens spilling his guts about new LED's here*


----------



## Marduke

uplite said:


> Seriously. Cree announced the XPG package almost half a year ago. Double the die area, and they projected it to be a whopping _12% brighter_ than XPE. Wow! NOT.  And it is still not generally available. :sleepy:



Again with the not-reading thing....

Let's see if I can explain this AGAIN. The sum of a product can NOT be summed up in a single number. In this case, the XP-G has greatly enhanced voltage droop, meaning the benefit gets larger and larger at higher drive currents. 

Driven at 1 A, the XP-G produces 345 lumens, which is *37 percent brighter and 53 percent more efficient* than the brightest XR-E LED.


----------



## Calina

So they're finally bringing hat 160lm/W LED out of the lab and putting it into production...
And doing it with the XP-G.  

Just me speculating.  :devil:


----------



## MichaelW

*just ratings*



znomit said:


> So, XR-E was released initially as 700mA max, XP-E currently as 700mA but rumour is it will be bumped to 1A.
> What do people think?
> Any chance the G will see an increase to 1.5A?



yes & no.
Cree might better differentiate maximum current in relation to color temperature.
I could see the xp-e going to 1,000mA for cool-white, 850mA for neutral-white, and keeping warm-white at 700mA
I could see the xp-g going to 1,200mA for cool, 1,000mA for neutral, 800mA for warm.

The rumored xr-g will probably be able to do 1,500mA in cool, 1,250mA for neutral, 1,000mA in warm


----------



## MichaelW

deleted


----------



## LowBat

Without reading the last 348 posts, when is a detailed announcement scheduled to be released? By detailed I mean all the specs.


----------



## Nos

All in all it seems that the XP-G doesnt drop in efficiency at higher driving currents, resulting in a surprisingly high output. I bet the TI Quarks will be at least ~210 Lumen OTF on max, instead of 170 with the XP-E


----------



## uplite

Marduke said:


> Again with the not-reading thing....
> 
> Let's see if I can explain this AGAIN. The sum of a product can NOT be summed up in a single number. In this case, the XP-G has greatly enhanced voltage droop, meaning the benefit gets larger and larger at higher drive currents.
> 
> Driven at 1 A, the XP-G produces 345 lumens, which is *37 percent brighter and 53 percent more efficient* than the brightest XR-E LED.


marduke, please chill out, read the specs, and do the math. Unless you _want_ to look like an angry buffoon. 

Here's the situation:

Cree has not released a public datasheet for the XP-G, but you can find basic XP-G specs in *this Cree presentation from Lightfair 2009*. (hint: skip to the last 3 slides)

Quoting directly from those slides, the XP-G is *"Projected to be ~12% brighter than current XP-E distribution"* (page 23). That is unimpressive, considering the CPF reports that XP-G has *2x the die area* of XP-E. You've gotta wonder...is Cree just cutting their low-quality wafers into larger chunks to make the XP-G? I dunno... :thinking:

Also, *Vf is "~4% lower than XP-E"* (page 24). That's a nice little efficiency bump from the larger dies, but nothing to write home about. 

Those slides are probably comparing bin-to-bin at 350mA. If you feel too lazy to read the graphs and do the math, here are the numbers for XP-E R2 against XP-G R4 (higher bin), at both 350mA and 700mA:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/3064212#post3064212

As for 1A current...many of us could care less.  The efficiency sucks, thermal management becomes a huge issue, natural tint is blown out, and phosphor degrades more quickly. Cree quotes most of the xlamp specs at *350mA* for a reason. 

Yeah, some "flashaholic" lights will drive a single XP-G at 1A for white-wall-hunter bragging rights, but those lights are an insignificant market for these LEDs. From a mainstream engineering perspective, 1A does not make sense for most flashlights, or for commercial/home/auto lighting systems. Multiple LEDs driven at lower current are usually more appropriate.

Share and enjoy. 

-Jeff


----------



## uplite

LowBat said:


> Without reading the last 348 posts, when is a detailed announcement scheduled to be released? By detailed I mean all the specs.


According to these slides (see the last one), the XP-G product release is scheduled for "Late Q3 CY2009":
http://www.powerled.ru/user_img/xlampxpeansiwww_powerled_ru.pdf

That would be this week. 

-Jeff


----------



## saabluster

uplite said:


> marduke, please chill out, read the specs, and do the math. Unless you _want_ to look like an angry buffoon.
> 
> Here's the situation:
> 
> Cree has not released a public datasheet for the XP-G, but you can find basic XP-G specs in *this Cree presentation from Lightfair 2009*. (hint: skip to the last 3 slides)
> 
> Quoting directly from those slides, the XP-G is *"Projected to be ~12% brighter than current XP-E distribution"* (page 23). That is unimpressive, considering the CPF reports that XP-G has *2x the die area* of XP-E. You've gotta wonder...is Cree just cutting their low-quality wafers into larger chunks to make the XP-G? I dunno... :thinking:
> 
> Also, *Vf is "~4% lower than XP-E"* (page 24). That's a nice little efficiency bump from the larger dies, but nothing to write home about.
> 
> Those slides are probably comparing bin-to-bin at 350mA. If you feel too lazy to read the graphs and do the math, here are the numbers for XP-E R2 against XP-G R4 (higher bin), at both 350mA and 700mA:
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/3064212#post3064212
> 
> As for 1A current...many of us could care less.  The efficiency sucks, thermal management becomes a huge issue, natural tint is blown out, and phosphor degrades more quickly. Cree quotes most of the xlamp specs at *350mA* for a reason.
> 
> Yeah, some "flashaholic" lights will drive a single XP-G at 1A for white-wall-hunter bragging rights, but those lights are an insignificant market for these LEDs. From a mainstream engineering perspective, 1A does not make sense for most flashlights, or for commercial/home/auto lighting systems. Multiple LEDs driven at lower current are usually more appropriate.
> 
> Share and enjoy.
> 
> -Jeff


Hmm... you are treading on thin ice bro.


----------



## Marduke

uplite said:


> marduke, please chill out, read the specs, and do the math. Unless you _want_ to look like an angry buffoon.
> 
> Here's the situation:
> 
> Cree has not released a public datasheet for the XP-G, but you can find basic XP-G specs in *this Cree presentation from Lightfair 2009*. (hint: skip to the last 3 slides)
> 
> Quoting directly from those slides, the XP-G is *"Projected to be ~12% brighter than current XP-E distribution"* (page 23). That is unimpressive, considering the CPF reports that XP-G has 2x the die area of XP-E. You've gotta wonder...is Cree just cutting their low-quality wafers into larger chunks to make the XP-G? I dunno... :thinking:
> 
> *Also, Vf is "~4% lower than XP-E" (page 24).* That's a nice little efficiency bump from the larger dies, but nothing to write home about.
> 
> Those slides are probably comparing bin-to-bin at 350mA. *If you feel too lazy to read the graphs and do the math,* here are the numbers for XP-E R2 against XP-G R4 (higher bin), at both 350mA and 700mA:
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/3064212#post3064212
> 
> As for 1A current...many of us could care less.  The efficiency sucks, thermal management becomes a huge issue, natural tint is blown out, and phosphor degrades more quickly. Cree quotes most of the xlamp specs at *350mA* for a reason.
> 
> Yeah, some "flashaholic" lights will drive a single XP-G at 1A for white-wall-hunter bragging rights, but those lights are an insignificant market for these LEDs. From a mainstream engineering perspective, 1A does not make sense for most flashlights, or for commercial/home/auto lighting systems. Multiple LEDs driven at lower current are usually more appropriate.
> 
> Share and enjoy.
> 
> -Jeff



"*If you feel too lazy to read the graphs and do the math,"

*I am fully capable of looking at the performance over the entire range of potential drive current in the GRAPH, instead of looking at a SINGLE value. 

Almost no lights will drive at 350mA, and ONLY 350mA, so the performance over the entire range is EXTREMELY important, and hence why the XP-G is in fact quite a large leap in technology.


----------



## uplite

Marduke said:


> I am fully capable of looking at the performance over the entire range of potential drive current in the GRAPH, instead of looking at a SINGLE value.


Great, so give it a shot for the range of drive current you care about. I think you'll be surprised when you actually do the math. 

Here's an example to get you started, luminous efficacy at two common drive currents:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/3064212#post3064212

Luminous efficacy _looks_ like one value, but you actually calculate it from multiple values. 

-Jeff


----------



## Marduke

uplite said:


> *Great, so give it a shot for the range of drive current you care about. I think you'll be surprised when you actually do the math. *
> 
> Here's an example to get you started, luminous efficacy at two common drive currents:
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/3064212#post3064212
> 
> Luminous efficacy _looks_ like one value, but you actually calculate it from multiple values.
> 
> -Jeff



Already did, above...

At 1A, XP-G is 37% brighter and 53% more efficient.

That has a floatdown effect to more efficient drive circuits, lower battery current draw, and therefore greater runtime.

Limiting the voltage droop effect is a HUGE deal in the current LED technology.


----------



## mudman cj

Kudos to Marduke for disagreeing in a respectful manner. :thumbsup:

You have to give respect if you want to be respected.


----------



## js-lots

[email protected] said:


> Should I just take the bus to Cutter just to fine out?



Lol. Yeah thanks, could you take a quick ride over there, pick them up and get them shipped to me so I can overdrive another flashlight of mine. Appreciate it.


----------



## monanza

4sevens said:


> when the news hits the stands I guarantee you'll be picking up your jaw from off the ground.


Hold on, let me pull out my Quark Ti XP-G to find it first.  Whatever it is, I can't wait to see what you have up your sleeve.


----------



## TorchBoy

Marduke said:


> In this case, the XP-G has greatly enhanced voltage droop, meaning the benefit gets larger and larger at higher drive currents.


Is "enhanced" really the word you should use there? I'm thinking it should be, say, something more like this:


Marduke said:


> Limiting the voltage droop effect is a HUGE deal in the current LED technology.


And this is the efficacy droop effect, right? Not that I've ever seen it referred to as that.



uplite said:


> As for 1A current...many of us could care less.


And do you mean that you could _not_ care less? I am one of the many that could definitely care less about it. An efficient high mode in my caving lights would be very very nice.

If an XR-G has limited efficacy droop up to 1.5 A, we should be getting ~450 lumens at the top end. Not really jaw dropping - more to be expected with the development time since the last big step, I would say - but I guess we'll see.


----------



## WeLight

All the odours of a nice bar fight, im there.....

FWIW.. Cree recently released their 
http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/XLampXR-E_lumen_maintenance.pdf

this is a response the long published and often cited Lumileds document and graphs and discuss's in detail led life at high tj. Commercial customers are very interested in running leds at high current and consequently high tj as it impacts on bottom line with reduced heatsinking . Some customers ie in ground lights have poor path to ambient but want to run leds hard so efficacy, thermals, droop are absolutely critical.


----------



## Burgess

When i see David *excited* about something,
i know he has good reason for doing so.


Even if he can't discuss *specifics* on a public forum. 


These are indeed* great times* to be a Flashaholic.


_


----------



## adnj

Marduke said:


> Driven at 1 A, the XP-G produces 345 lumens, which is *37 percent brighter and 53 percent more efficient* than the brightest XR-E LED.



Agreed. The biggest advantage is a efficiency increase at higher currents. Even if the bins correlate, there is a "output bin shift increase" that looks like a higher slope output curve.



MichaelW said:


> The rumored xr-g will probably be able to do 1,500mA in cool, 1,250mA for neutral, 1,000mA in warm



Most of the quoted current limitations are due to color bin shift as the diode emitted light increases disproportionately to the fluoresced light emitted.



uplite said:


> marduke, please chill out, read the specs, and do the math. Unless you _want_ to look like an angry buffoon.
> ...Cree quotes most of the xlamp specs at *350mA* for a reason.



Cree specs are at 350 ma because that is the approximate point where their LEDs relative luminous flux curves for all colors have a second derivative of zero; or seem to be flat for higher drive currents. 

Regarding the personal comments... :thumbsdow


----------



## Zendude

DING....DING...DING....in this corner MARDUUUUKE....and in this corner UPLIIIIIITE.

Come on guys! CHILL! 

You guys both make valid points(I'm referring to multiple threads you guys are sparing on). Maybe you should try focusing on what you DO agree on for a change. I think the forum would benefit from your _combined_ knowledge.


----------



## kwkarth

TorchBoy said:


> Is "enhanced" really the word you should use there? I'm thinking it should be, say, something more like this:
> 
> And this is the efficacy droop effect, right? Not that I've ever seen it referred to as that.
> 
> 
> And do you mean that you could _not_ care less? I am one of the many that could definitely care less about it. An efficient high mode in my caving lights would be very very nice.
> 
> If an XR-G has limited efficacy droop up to 1.5 A, we should be getting ~450 lumens at the top end. Not really jaw dropping - more to be expected with the development time since the last big step, I would say - but I guess we'll see.




Wait, wait, wait...

I haven't seen anything sensible with regard to Vf in many posts. So someone help me here please.

I thought Vf was the voltage drop across a forward biased junction of the diode. The lower the Vf, ("V" sub "f", or forward voltage across the diode junction) the less voltage required to maintain or deliver a given "If" ("I" sub "f", (forward current)), therefore less total power in mW to the led to light it up at a given value of luminance.

Since we all know that particularly when driving the led from single cell power sources, the lower the required Vf, the less you have to boost the voltage from insufficient output from a single cell. The boost circuit is inefficient at best and therefore, the lower the required Vf, the more efficient a single cell powered torch is, in a big way. 

So particularly for small single cell lights, the lower Vf gives a huge increase in efficiency to the "system" well beyond the singular efficiency gain of a more efficient LED alone. Consequently, battery life goes way up, beyond the change in the efficiency of the LED alone. Right? This one end of the benefit scale of the XPG led over XPE. Yes?

The other end of the benefit scale lies in the XPG's ability to not only sink higher forward currents across its junction, but it also maintains a higher luminous efficiency at high current, support of higher Jts(Junction temperatures) than the XPE series. 

Therefore, at low brightness, there are great efficiency gains for both the led itself and also for the power supply, then at high brightness levels one gets better luminance/If efficiency by virtue of the LED itself as well. In addition to all this, for a given luminous output, given Jts will be lower than a similarly driven XPE. Right?

So if I understand correctly, even though we do not have clear quantification of the specifics of the XPG series yet, looks like we can look forward to greater gains at both ends of the use spectrum, with easier thermal management as well! Right? This all IS something worth getting excited about!! Yes?


----------



## Marduke

100% correct.


----------



## kwkarth

Marduke said:


> 100% correct.



Thanks Marduke!


----------



## jtr1962

Besides the small efficiency increase, lower Vf is useful from another standpoint-single cell Li-ion lights. Right now in many cases those need to use a boost-buck circuit to drive the LED while getting the most out of the battery. If LED Vf is very low, then the need for a boost part vanishes. This increases circuit efficiency. It also decreases complexity.


----------



## kwkarth

I think another thing I've noticed is that any sentence with more than 5 words, and more than 1 post back, is not read by 90% of the thread participants.


----------



## Marduke

I could swear I saw a lm/W vs mA curve comparing the XP-G and XP-E, but my Google-Fu must be weak tonight and I can't find it.

I'll make one from the Cree release some time tomorrow.

If anyone else remembers seeing it, please post it here and save me the trouble of redoing it.

Thanks.


----------



## blasterman

> Commercial customers are very interested in running leds at high current


 
You betcha. In commercial applications you typically have a lumen/candella goal to meet first, but power utilization concerns are typically not critical because it doesn't change production costs much to tweak a power supply, and the guy designing the fixture isn't paying for the power it's using. 

Obviously heat sinking concerns is a big priority, but using hordes of efficient LEDs at 100-150mA to get around using big chunks of metal eventually meets it's efficiency apex at some point. IMHO - I think we're seeing the SMD format about at it's peak.

At 700mA, which is a reasonable drive current in my opinion for longevity, this is still an impressive LED. Curious about the specs for other colors - when they arrive.


----------



## Marduke

Marduke said:


> I could swear I saw a lm/W vs mA curve comparing the XP-G and XP-E, but my Google-Fu must be weak tonight and I can't find it.
> 
> I'll make one from the Cree release some time tomorrow.
> 
> If anyone else remembers seeing it, please post it here and save me the trouble of redoing it.
> 
> Thanks.



I would still like to see the graph (I thought) I saw, but I have done one anyhow.

From the Cree document found here, I digitized the plots on page 24 and fit second order polynomials to them (all fits R^2 >0.9996), then computed a lm/W vs current graph.

First showing XP-G R4 130lm @350mA and XP-E R2 114lm @350mA. These are based off minimum values.








I did a second graph to eliminate bin effects. Rather than do what Cree did using 100% lumens relative brightness at 350mA, I made the assumption that XP-E R4 bins will be available in the future (which may never happen), so both LED's are factored as being R4 bins. The relative difference would apply across any bins, although absolute values would change. I feel this graph show the true benefit of the XP-G over the XP-E at higher drive currents, however it gives a false impression that it performs worse at lower drive currents. While the same bin of each would, there are no R4 binned XP-E's at this time.







Comments are welcome. I look forward to jtr1962's data when he tests the XP-G R4's and creates an empiracal graph similar to the first one above to see how it relates to Cree's data.

Edit:
Keep in mind, I also assume that Cree used optimal thermal conditions for these tests. In instances where there were non-optimal thermal conditions (such as the limited heatsinked body of a flashlight), the XP-G and XP-E curves would further deviate at higher current.


----------



## 4sevens

Marduke, those are nice graphs! As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words!
(the second graph's legend should indicate both as R4)

You should add another data string from the XR-E Q5's since most lights out there are using them.


----------



## Marduke

Legend fixed. I'll look into adding XR-E data later tonight.


----------



## kwkarth

Marduke said:


> Legend fixed. I'll look into adding XR-E data later tonight.



So I wasn't going crazy after all. That happened years ago as I originally suspected.


----------



## MichaelW

TorchBoy said:


> If an XR-G has limited efficacy droop up to 1.5 A, we should be getting ~450 lumens at the top end.



I was hoping for 500 lumens at 1.5amps

Did Cree say a single die got 1,000 lumens at 4 amps? would that have been a precursor to the xR-g


----------



## kwkarth

Can you imagine the junction temp at 4 amps? Life span?


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

I demand silver substrate!


----------



## Freeze_XJ

If you pay enough, you can get it  

4 A? That's steep... Please divide it over a huge die, and perhaps it's OK... Although, if you look at it, that's some 13-15 W. Doable, but not funny for your batteries. For ceilings and car lights it's a good deal though.


----------



## RyanA

kwkarth said:


> Can you imagine the junction temp at 4 amps? Life span?



LOL. Just imagine how glorious it would be. Just make a quick change socket. Heck some of the incan guys got through $20 dollar bulbs like crazy.


----------



## luckybucket

> LOL. Just imagine how glorious it would be. Just make a quick change socket. Heck some of the incan guys got through $20 dollar bulbs like crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> thats why i dont epoxy my emitters down. i just use thermal paste and if possible use the reflector to apply pressure. if thats not possible then ill just rip it off the heatsink and sand down the old epoxy.
> 
> dang i hate waiting for new technology to evolve so i build my next light.
Click to expand...


----------



## kwkarth

Freeze_XJ said:


> If you pay enough, you can get it
> 
> 4 A? That's steep... Please divide it over a huge die, and perhaps it's OK... Although, if you look at it, that's some 13-15 W. Doable, but not funny for your batteries. For ceilings and car lights it's a good deal though.



We could add Peltier cooling and another car battery for that and we're all set!


----------



## CampingLED

On the lower Vf issue, I started thinking about the current most popular single Li-ion drivers (most of them are 7135 based). So when the battery is fully charged efficiency will be fairly low (series chip that needs to absorb most of the extra voltage) and when it gets depleated it will go up (pitty that the battery may not keep up at the lower voltage), correct?.

Now, the pressure is on the optics and driver designers to go the extra mile.


----------



## Ekke

http://www.cree.com/Products/xlamp_xpg.asp :twothumbs

S2 bin: min. 148lm max. 156lm


----------



## mudman cj

Neither the datasheet nor the binning and labeling document make any mention of neutral white XP-G. :mecry:


----------



## tstartrekdude

Ekke said:


> http://www.cree.com/Products/xlamp_xpg.asp :twothumbs
> 
> S2 bin: min. 148lm max. 156lm



Where did you see that?

Edit:never mined.


----------



## txg

Ekke said:


> http://www.cree.com/Products/xlamp_xpg.asp :twothumbs
> 
> S2 bin: min. 148lm max. 156lm



does mentioning lumens for an s2 bin in this datasheet mean that these will become available soon or are these just numbers given by cree without actual practical use?


----------



## spencer

The publishing of a datasheet for this LED would indicate that the NDA is up. Those who have hands on experience with this LED, what can you tell us? Spill the beans.


----------



## baterija

mudman cj said:


> Neither the datasheet nor the binning and labeling document make any mention of neutral white XP-G. :mecry:



There's no Vf to If graph either in the datasheet which seems like pretty important info for the cool white that are shipping now. That makes me think this is a bit of a rush job to get something published and they can clean up later. Omission could be a sign...or could just be a matter of not worrying about what's later in the pipeline.


----------



## txg

but there are voltages in the data sheet...


Forward voltage (@ 350 mA) V 3.0 
Forward voltage (@ 700 mA) V 3.2
Forward voltage (@ 1000 mA) V 3.3

the very low forward voltage (xr-e @ 1000mA is 3.7V according to their datasheet, 3.5V measured by jtr1962) could actually cause a lot of problems in the well-known aa/aaa lights which use a boost converter for nimh batteries and go in direct drive mode with lithiums. 

i'm guessing that with an xp-g hooked up directly to a 14500, current will go up to 1.8-2 Amps, or even more.


----------



## Marduke

The previously linked presentation has the Vf graph. That is what I used for my above efficacy plots.


----------



## saabluster

txg said:


> does mentioning lumens for an s2 bin in this datasheet mean that these will become available soon or are these just numbers given by cree without actual practical use?


Historically yes. These bins were not shown on the pre-release datasheets so I am happy but not all that shocked to see these bins. It did seem a little strange that they were only able to do up to an R4 not only because of the larger die but because of the new die structure. This makes me much happier than the R3 XP-G which I have now. Unfortunately it may be next week before I have the chance to post anything of any detail on these as I am frantically trying to get some lights done for our GTG this weekend.


----------



## txg

thats just great. i've done some math with the assumption that efficiency losses at higher currents are the same with xp-g r4 and s2. 

what i got is an output of 387 lumens for an xp-g s2 @ 1000mA. 

this is SO great, keeping in mind that the best led before was an xr-e r2 with 242 lumens. 

efficiency per watt will be even higher due to the lower vf, at least if these leds are used with a non-linear driver.


----------



## mudman cj

baterija said:


> Omission could be a sign...or could just be a matter of not worrying about what's later in the pipeline.



Since they make neutral white tint in XR-E, XP-E, and MC-E I figure they will also make it in XP-G. The real question is how long it will be...


----------



## Marduke

XR-E R2 added


----------



## lolzertank

mudman cj said:


> Neither the datasheet nor the binning and labeling document make any mention of neutral white XP-G. :mecry:



And the announcement PDF says "Cool white only"... :mecry::mecry::mecry::mecry:


----------



## 4sevens

Marduke said:


> XR-E R2 added


Marduke, that graph is a thing of beauty!


----------



## TorchBoy

txg said:


> Forward voltage (@ 1000 mA) V 3.3
> 
> the very low forward voltage (xr-e @ 1000mA is 3.7V according to their datasheet, 3.5V measured by jtr1962) ...


I've had one XR-E that had a Vf @ 1 A of 3.30 V, and a few more at around 3.40 V. I'd say they're improving manufacturing processes. :thumbsup: The bigger die helps too, doesn't it?



4sevens said:


> Marduke, that graph is a thing of beauty!


But is that the jaw-dropping thing I'm told to expect? Or will the jaw-dropping part be the price?


----------



## znomit

Aren't they hitting 105 lm/W at 1A?


----------



## Marduke

znomit said:


> Aren't they hitting 105 lm/W at 1A?




96-101.4, plus scatter on Vf and binning allowances.


----------



## WeLight

Just tested R3 and they match the above figures


----------



## tstartrekdude

Is there any word on when we will see the R5 bin's? according to all the data they are being produced and are avalable.


----------



## 4sevens

Marduke said:


> XR-E R2 added


Can you add an XP-G R5 line?


----------



## dudu84

Marduke said:


> Already did, above...
> 
> At 1A, XP-G is 37% brighter and 53% more efficient.
> 
> That has a floatdown effect to more efficient drive circuits, lower battery current draw, and therefore greater runtime.
> 
> Limiting the voltage droop effect is a HUGE deal in the current LED technology.



Your calculations are very close to 46% and 64% Cree claimed :thumbsup:


----------



## Marduke

4sevens said:


> Can you add an XP-G R5 line?



Intriguing....


----------



## manoloco

lol, step by step.

Are you guys giving a chance to someone so his jaw doesnt drop too hard?, cmon show us S2


----------



## [email protected]

manoloco said:


> lol, step by step.
> 
> Are you guys giving a chance to someone so his jaw doesnt drop too hard?, cmon show us S2


I don't think the data for that is out yet.


----------



## Marduke

[email protected] said:


> I don't think the data for that is out yet.



Actually the bins are just a scale on the curve. The important bit was just the general characteristics for the package.


----------



## TorchBoy

OK, I'll play too. Can you add an XP-G S2 line?


----------



## znomit

TorchBoy said:


> OK, I'll play too. Can you add an XP-G S2 line?



Capable of 105 lm/W at 1A.
That statement is different from "hey, look we've go a bin we call V, nothing in it yet though" :devil:


----------



## Marduke

TorchBoy said:


> OK, I'll play too. Can you add an XP-G S2 line?



Same shift as the R4 -> R5


----------



## Pekka

Hmm. Am I reading that right, when assuming it should extend further down as Quarks use less current for their modes? If so... one more graph please


----------



## Marduke

The XP-G data only goes down to ~160mA, so I can't graph it any lower than I have. You'll have to wait for jtr's tests to see the rest of the efficacy curve.


----------



## LowBat

Can we put this in laymans terms? The Cree XRE doubled the output or runtime when it came out a few years ago. Are we looking at another such increase, or is this say a 25% increase in efficiency?


----------



## Marduke

LowBat said:


> Can we put this in laymans terms? The Cree XRE doubled the output or runtime when it came out a few years ago. Are we looking at another such increase, or is this say a 25% increase in efficiency?



It's about the same size jump given the same reference point. Based off the previous generation, it seems less since your starting point is higher.


----------



## uplite

LowBat said:


> Can we put this in laymans terms? The Cree XRE doubled the output or runtime when it came out a few years ago. Are we looking at another such increase, or is this say a 25% increase in efficiency?


It is roughly a *5% increase in efficiency* when you compare the same flux bins.

The graphs above mostly show the increase in output from R2 > R4 > R5 > S2. And the jump in efficiency from XR-E to XP-E with the same bin (R2).

This would be clearer if the graphs showed the R3 flux bin, for _both_ XP-E and XP-G. Then it's an apples-to-apples efficiency comparison.

I hate to ask...Marduke? 

-Jeff

p.s. I apologize to everyone for the tone of my earlier messages this past weekend.  I totally overreacted to being followed and attacked on this thread after challenging marduke on another thread. That is NOT an excuse, just an explanation. It won't happen again.


----------



## Marduke

uplite said:


> It is roughly a *5% increase in efficiency* when you compare the same flux bins.
> 
> *The graphs above mostly show the increase in output from R2 > R4 > R5 > S2. And the jump in efficiency from XR-E to XP-E with the same bin (R2).
> 
> This would be clearer if the graphs showed the R3 flux bin, for both XP-E and XP-G. Then it's an apples-to-apples efficiency comparison.
> 
> I hate to ask...Marduke? *
> 
> -Jeff
> 
> p.s. I apologize to everyone for the tone of my earlier messages this past weekend.  I totally overreacted to being followed and attacked on this thread after challenging marduke on another thread. That is NOT an excuse, just an explanation. It won't happen again.



Again with the not reading...

I ALREADY graphed the XP-E and XP-G of the same flux bin for a relative comparrison.


----------



## uplite

Marduke said:


> Again with the not reading...


Marduke, again, I'm sorry I reacted like I did when you said this before. I had read everything then, and I have read everything this time too, so I felt/feel that your comment is unfair and unjustified. 



> I ALREADY graphed the XP-E and XP-G of the same flux bin for a relative comparrison.


You graphed the R4, by itself, with no other flux bins. I _specifically_ said *R3*.

Adding R3 to the above graphs would fill the gap, and make it clear what they show, which is mostly just the bin-to-bin jump.

Those multi-bin graphs make it _look_ like there is a big gap between XP-E and XP-G, which is not accurate. If you would add R3 for both XPG and XPE to the graph with the other bins, it will be clear.

Thanks, and apologies again,

-Jeff


----------



## Marduke

uplite said:


> You graphed the R4, by itself, with no other flux bins. I _specifically_ said *R3*.
> 
> Adding R3 to the above graphs would fill the gap, and make it clear what they show, which is mostly just the bin-to-bin jump. They make it _look_ like there is a huge gap between XP-E and XP-G, which is not accurate.
> 
> If you would please add R3 to the graph with the other bins, it will be clear.
> 
> Thanks, and apologies again,
> 
> -Jeff



I graphed the R4 bin of both the XP-E *and* XP-G to illustrate the difference without ANY binning effects.

FYI, apples to apples, the XP-G has ~16.4% more efficacy at 1A than the XP-E AT THE SAME BIN.

Guess you didn't read that part...


----------



## uplite

Marduke said:


> I graphed the R4 bin of both the XP-E *and* XP-G to illustrate the difference without ANY binning effects.


Right, I get that. But the _other_ graphs you posted are very misleading because:
they do not show XPE and XPG at the same bins
they leave a gap between XPE R2 and XPG R4 that makes it look like the new die size alone is responsible
That is why I suggested that you add XPE-R3 and XPG-R3 to those graph. It would clarify the _real_ difference between XPE and XPG, and between the flux bins.

If you _want_ to obscure the data, I understand. This isn't a business for me though, just a hobby! 




> FYI, apples to apples, the XP-G has ~16.4% more efficacy at 1A than the XP-E AT THE SAME BIN.
> 
> Guess you didn't read that part...


Technically...yes...I did not _read_ that number anywhere. I have only seen it in the R4 graph that you created. 

Really I would go a step further and say that the XP-G is *infinitely more efficient* than the XPE at 1A, because _the XPE is not rated for 1A_. 

But as I've mentioned, I do not see 1A as a practical drive current for most applications with these LEDs. Great for white-wall-hunter bragging rights. Poor for thermal management, tint, and life expectancy.

To be clear...I think the XP-G is an obvious next step. As soon as they ship neutral tints, I'm sure I will buy some. But it is an incremental step, especially compared to the huge leaps that happened a few years ago.

-Jeff


----------



## Marduke

uplite said:


> Right, I get that. But the _other_ graphs you posted are very misleading because:
> they do not show XPE and XPG at the same bins
> *they leave a gap between XPE R2 and XPG R4 that makes it look like the new die size alone is responsible*
> That is why I suggested that you add XPE-R3 and XPG-R3 to those graph. It would clarify the _real_ difference between XPE and XPG, and between the flux bins.
> 
> If you _want_ to obscure the data, I understand. This isn't a business for me though, just a hobby!



The gap IS due entirely to the new design, that is the entire reason why they are in different bins to begin with... 

You make a new LED, it is going to have higher efficacy, so it is graded better.

Seriously, it's not rocket science...


----------



## vincebdx

Perfect !
I want a ultra small xp-g itp A3 EOS


----------



## uplite

Marduke said:


> The gap IS due entirely to the new design, that is the entire reason why they are in different bins to begin with...


So why would you bother with an XPE-R4 to XPG-R4 graph? 



Marduke said:


> You make a new LED, it is going to have higher efficacy, so it is graded better.


Maybe. But not _much_ better. 



> Seriously, it's not rocket science...


:laughing: Apparently it is mostly _business_...which is as simple as it gets. :duh2:

-Jeff


----------



## mds82

uplite said:


> So why would you bother with an XPE-R4 to XPG-R4 graph?
> 
> Maybe. But not _much_ better.
> 
> :laughing: Apparently it is mostly _business_...which is as simple as it gets. :duh2:
> 
> -Jeff




wow dude.... seriously, your a ****. He is doing everyone a favor by making these graphs and your ripping his head off. chill out
lol... your screen name should be uptight not uplight. ha ha


----------



## uplite

I'm chilled. Nothing personal. Just pointing out where/why the graphs are misleading. marduke has _not_ done us a favor by posting them as they are.

If you simply add XPE-R3 and XPG-R3 to the graph with the other bins, it will be clear how small the bump is. If you don't want to do this, well, that also gives us some good information. 

-Jeff


----------



## Marduke

uplite said:


> So why would you bother with an XPE-R4 to XPG-R4 graph?
> 
> Maybe. But not _much_ better.
> 
> :laughing: Apparently it is mostly _business_...which is as simple as it gets. :duh2:
> -Jeff



I did the R4 graph to demonstrate the difference in performance is nor just a simple shift in efficacy, such as a simple jumps in bins. 

As for how much better this is, that is clearly posted for all to see. If the change is not clear to you, that is your loss.

WRT the "business" comment, that is the second time you implied I have some monatary stake here. I am not making a dime off any of this, my job IS rocket science, not LED's and batterie...


----------



## uplite

So, can you please please PLEASE add the R3 numbers to the graph with the other bins, to close the gap and make it more clear?

-Jeff


----------



## Marduke

uplite said:


> I'm chilled. Nothing personal. Just pointing out where/why the graphs are misleading. marduke has _not_ done us a favor by posting them as they are.
> 
> If you simply add XPE-R3 and XPG-R3 to the graph with the other bins, it will be clear how small the bump is. If you don't want to do this, well, that also gives us some good information.
> 
> -Jeff



You may not appreciate it, but many people here DO appreciate me staying up to 3AM the other night to put these graphs together.

And I'll give you a hint, an R3 vs R3 graph will look nearly IDENTICAL to the one already posted. I could plot P4 vs P4 or S4 vs S4 and the relative difference will remain unchanged. 

The fact that you keep asking for exactly what I already provided shows you have no idea what is acually going on here..


----------



## uplite

marduke, I really _do_ appreciate your efforts!! Thank you. It's just that the graphs you posted so far are very misleading. That happens with graphs sometimes.

I have _not_ asked for something you provided. I asked for something that would make the gap in the multi-bin graph more clear. That gap is _not_ due solely to the larger die of the XPG...it is _mostly_ the jump of two flux bins.

If you simply added XPE-R3 and XPG-R3 to the graph, it would be very clear.

-Jeff

p.s. Whether we actually see an XPE-R3 is another matter. Even if Cree makes it, I expect the flashlight manufacturers will jump to the higher bin XPGs.


----------



## Marduke

uplite said:


> marduke, I really _do_ appreciate your efforts!! Thank you. It's just that the graphs you posted so far are very misleading. That happens with graphs sometimes.
> 
> I have _not_ asked for something you provided. I asked for something that would make the gap in the multi-bin graph more clear. *That gap is not due solely to the larger die of the XPG...it is mostly the jump of two flux bins.*
> 
> If you simply added XPE-R3 and XPG-R3 to the graph, it would be very clear.
> 
> -Jeff



And there is your fundamental misunderstanding. The jump in flux bins is BECAUSE of the new tech in the XP-G (which is not JUST a larger die).

XP-E R3 vs XP-G R3 will not tell you anything new. The relative difference is IDENTICAL to what I already posted. Difference in efficacy is the same, it's still ~16.4% @1A.


----------



## moviles

what the hell are waiting for dx for deal this led???????? 

this led will be too bad with aspheric lens but will be nice for 14500 powered flashlights with reflector

for 18650 powered flashlights like sku 15969 I prefer the sst-50 than the ssc p7














but we cant drive at 100% the sst-50 with 14500 without high explosion risk, we can underdrive the sst-50 and get good efficiency and perfect spot but maybe too floody

the XP-G with 1.4x1.4mm will be the best for small flashlights powered with 14500 like ultrafire c3,romisen rc-g2.... with sku 7882 @1-2 amp :thumbsup:


----------



## DavidD

Enough, please. Thank you Marduke for all of your hard work on all the graphs. Now, I don't know if plotting an R3 of both would show anything new, and I am not an expert on any of this. But Uplite says in post 416, it is about a 5% increase. Looking at the Marduke's R4 graph in post 372, I understand where he might come up with that number.

At 350ma, 125/119 = 5% difference, however...

at 700ma 109/97 = 12% difference &
at 1amp 97/83 = 17% difference all at the same bin.

I don't claim to understand how to figure all the increases in brightness, but it obviously is better - to some degree, depending on how hard you drive it.

David


----------



## saabluster

uplite said:


> marduke, I really _do_ appreciate your efforts!! Thank you. It's just that the graphs you posted so far are very misleading. That happens with graphs sometimes.
> 
> I have _not_ asked for something you provided. I asked for something that would make the gap in the multi-bin graph more clear. That gap is _not_ due solely to the larger die of the XPG...it is _mostly_ the jump of two flux bins.
> 
> If you simply added XPE-R3 and XPG-R3 to the graph, it would be very clear.
> 
> -Jeff
> 
> p.s. Whether we actually see an XPE-R3 is another matter. Even if Cree makes it, I expect the flashlight manufacturers will jump to the higher bin XPGs.


I may be wrong but I have recently become quite good at detecting people who have been banned in the past here and coming back and you sir seem to fit the bill. Again I may be way off but I have noticed a trend with the attitude of such like ones. ie Been here a month and think they know everything. There are many holes in your ideas but I don't feel like wasting the time to point them out. Both you and Marduke keep baiting one another into fighting and it is ruining an otherwise good thread.


----------



## Marduke

Saabluster, if you feel that, ask a mod to investigate him, although I am coming to the same conclusion...


----------



## moviles

the only way to buy one XP-G now its fron cutter. com?

http://www.cutter.com.au/proddetail.php?prod=cut937

I want test one but I dont want pay 19$ today for one in cutter.com (12$ship cost) and maybe tomorrow find it in dx for 6$


----------



## ergotelis

The price you said is Au dollars. I bought 4 and the total sum is quite good for price. Also, dx sells junk, you don't know what you will receive, at least cutter is a reputable cree seller. I don't want to advertise anyone, these things are common to most flashaholics here in forum.


----------



## moviles

ergotelis said:


> The price you said is Au dollars. I bought 4 and the total sum is quite good for price. Also, dx sells junk, you don't know what you will receive, at least cutter is a reputable cree seller. I don't want to advertise anyone, these things are common to most flashaholics here in forum.


true its au dollars... 16$ one and 21$ 2... with 4 the total sum is quite good for price 

and i want be 100% sure to receive true r4 bins 

maybe cutter.com its good option for order 3-4 XP-G


----------



## uplite

saabluster said:


> I may be way off


Correct. I am just an old fart with too much time on my hands, who hates to see misleading info on public forums. 

FWIW, I use and like Cree LEDs. See my sig. But IMO, the XPG is not a big deal. It seems to be the same die chemistry as before, just sliced differently to fill the niche between the ~1mm2 XPE die and ~4mm2 MCE dice.

Personally, for now, I'll take an XPE or an MCE instead. When there are more optics for the XPG beam, it will make more sense.

YMMV. 




> There are many holes in your ideas but I don't feel like wasting the time to point them out


If you see any holes, please do point them out! I want to know, Otherwise, why bother posting? A post with no facts is worse than no post at all. 


Thanks-
-Jeff


----------



## CampingLED

Graphs show the R2 XP-E and R4 XP-G, which are the highest bins offered on sale today for both the XP-E and XP-G. So in *REALITY* the graphs show the difference we will see in flashlights for both XP LEDs. Tks Marduke for the graphs.


----------



## ergotelis

uplite said:


> FWIW, I use and like Cree LEDs. See my sig. But IMO, the XPG is not a big deal. It seems to be the same die chemistry as before, just sliced differently to fill the niche between the ~1mm2 XPE die and ~4mm2 MCE dice.



I think you are wrong. It is a big leap to achieve extra 100lm at the same wattage of about 3,5w. When we needed in past 4 leds,now we only need 3 with less wattage. Its performance at that wattage is like the one MCE and P7 has, which are a lot bigger. Now with that small package, great performance and focusing is possible.


----------



## Calina

uplite said:


> If you simply added XPE-R3 and XPG-R3 to the graph, it would be very clear.
> 
> -Jeff


 
Frankly Jeff I don't understand your insistence. As Marduke said 
" XP-E R3 vs XP-G R3 will not tell you anything new. The relative difference is IDENTICAL to what I already posted. Difference in efficacy is the same, it's still ~16.4% @1A. "
The graph for the R4 bin in post 372 is identical to the one you're asking for except that it starts 7 lumens higher. I think everybody can see that the difference in efficiency isn't that high at lower current and increases at higher current. The fact that your don't seem interested in running your LED at high current doesn't imply that the XP-G is not a big jump. Droop is improved by a big margin and that is no small feat. 

Marduke thanks for your work, it is really appreciated.

As for the bickering, I'm with Saabluster


----------



## tstartrekdude

ok think about this, the R2 at 500ma puts out 162 lumens the R5(should be out there somewhere) puts out about 350, if the xp-g was cut in half and the current was as well it would be putting out 175, and the S2 would be even better.so i think they are at lest using the new gen2 die's like the .81mm2 R2's if not somthing better and new. whether 4svevens was talking about the S2 as the thing that will make are jaw's drop or not, i think is still up for debate.

oh and killing droop is the best thing that can be done in the LED world, since it is the biggest problem we have today.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

uplite, I believe what they are trying to get you to see is that the effect is greater at higher currents, where current LEDs struggle. sure, nothing special about a bigger LED putting out more light. It is at higher currents that this LED's figures pull away from the current LED tech. I have read and like to believe that this is not only an effect of the larger size. The larger size of the die contributes some, in that the same current going into an xp-e and xp-g, the xp-g will have a lower density and therefore perform better, but I think there is also more. 

we should just be happy that such things as LEDs exist. I'm amazed at how thin LEDs are, how they're grown, how they're constructed, and it's all so tiny! somebody posted a link to some neat break-down pics of common LEDs, with electron microscop pics and everything! works of art!


----------



## Greg G

Anyone tried these in commonly available reflectors like the McR series?

I am wanting to build a couple of septa Cree [email protected] soon, and was wondering if these worked well with something a McR19XR and were worth waiting for, or should I just order some more R2 XR-E's.

Thanks.

Greg


----------



## mds82

I just checked with LedLightingSupply.com and they will have these in stock late October or early November. 

I plan on getting a few to test out


----------



## degarb

moviles said:


> the only way to buy one XP-G now its fron cutter. com?
> 
> http://www.cutter.com.au/proddetail.php?prod=cut937
> 
> I want test one but I dont want pay 19$ today for one in cutter.com (12$ship cost) and maybe tomorrow find it in dx for 6$



On this page, there is a cree triple. Is it possible to get someone to build me a triple headlamp, run from a simple 12 volt agm at say 400 milliamps. That would be .... lumens. I would give up the day for that.


----------



## xenonk

LEDs are known to perform worse at higher current density (droop), and a larger emitting surface reduces current density (and also thermal density). I don't know if it's the only factor in this case, but if an XP-E emitter isn't very saturated at 350mA current yet highly saturated at 1A then it would make sense for an emitter with twice the surface area to pull ahead in efficiency at higher current as its asymptote is further away.

Maybe Cree needs to start taking more than one drive level into account in their binning.


----------



## baterija

Uplite one of your focuses that's been ignored in some of the more argumentative follow on is that you don't see a big need for brighter or too drive much beyond the 350ma spec level where the efficiency benefits of an XP-G is smaller. In most of my uses I don't want or need a lot more light either. I am still excited about the XP-G. Why?

In one word, or more accurately one acronym, PWM. Many of the popular lights around here use PWM for lower levels. Especially the ones that are big among those of us that like and use very low levels for some tasks. All of my multimode lights use it. My LF3XT is just about my brightest light on 100% and my programmed "high" is about 70%. I usually don't need more. That's probably pretty close to your no more than 100 lumens requirement. *It's drive current is 700ma though* and it uses PWM to achieve it's lower levels.

From your own calculations in the post you linked to earlier


> 22% brighter @ 700mA
> ~5% lower Vf @ 700mA
> so, *28% more lumens/watt @ 700mA*


*

*If upgraded with an XP-G my 3XT would have the capability to be reprogrammed to about the same light level *giving me a 28% boost in runtime. *Actually it would be more because the 3XT used a Q5 and we haven't looked at any of the other cascading efficiencies from lower power usage. A third longer runtime is probably in the ballpark.

Now that excites me.:twothumbs


----------



## znomit

CampingLED said:


> Graphs show the R2 XP-E and R4 XP-G, which are the highest bins offered on sale today


 
Cutter says R5s shipping now  :wave: lovecpf:rock::buddies:


----------



## vincebdx

znomit said:


> Cutter says R5s shipping now  :wave: lovecpf:rock::buddies:


Already a R5 bin


----------



## Marduke

FYI, the Ti Quarks are confirmed to be shipped with R5's.


----------



## Toohotruk

Can't wait for my two Ti Quarks!!! :naughty:


----------



## [email protected]

I *MIGHT* be able to forward some for cheaper shipping if finances work out and there isn't a CPFer that's closer to Rowville.


----------



## CampingLED

znomit said:


> Cutter says R5s shipping now  :wave: lovecpf:rock::buddies:


 

 Now I need/want to change my 3 week old order for 4 x R4 and one Triple R4 (for a headlamp)


----------



## AlexD

tstartrekdude said:


> ok think about this, the R2 at 500ma puts out 162 lumens the R5(should be out there somewhere) puts out about 350, if the xp-g was cut in half and the current was as well it would be putting out 175


It would be interesting to see a graph lm/w/mm^2 v. Cur. for XP-E R2 and XP-G R5 to compare difference in technology.


----------



## TorchBoy

Thanks very much for that extra graph Marduke. I've taken the liberty of extending the vertical axis downward to zero, which for me makes it easier to see the significance of the improvement.

Hm... And the R5 is shipping, you say, znomit...

Marduke, would it be too much to ask for a graph for a Luxeon I, Cree XR-E P4 and R2, and the XP-G R5? It would be nice to see this thing in some sort of historical context.


----------



## Marduke

If you can save me some time and link the documents for the Lux I containing lm % vs I and I vs Vf (similar to Cree's graphs) I'll put it together tonight.


----------



## Marduke

Woah!! Check this out:
http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1254314703656

“Cree’s XLamp XP-G cool white LEDs set a new standard for LED performance,” said David Chow, president, 4Sevens, LLC. “For our flashlights, the XLamp XP-G LED was a clear choice because of its high lumen output, unmatched efficacy and compact package size.”


----------



## saabluster

Marduke said:


> Woah!! Check this out:
> http://www.cree.com/press/press_deta...=1254314703656
> 
> “Cree’s XLamp XP-G cool white LEDs set a new standard for LED performance,” said David Chow, president, 4Sevens, LLC. “For our flashlights, the XLamp XP-G LED was a clear choice because of its high lumen output, unmatched efficacy and compact package size.”


The link is not working for me.


----------



## gibby_z

Try this

http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1254314703656


----------



## Linger

Nice find Marduke.
He's been hinting something was happening today; their interview was scheduled for release.


----------



## Nedtheshred

Glad I have CREE stock.
These are awesome!!!

http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=174391

Ned


----------



## saabluster

Nedtheshred said:


> Glad I have CREE stock.
> These are awesome!!!
> 
> http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=174391
> 
> Ned


Here is a notable quote.

"we have begun offering limited samples of an S2 flux bin, providing up to 400 lumens at 1A. We target availability of XP-G neutral and warm white LED samples by end of calendar 2009."


----------



## rav

Check this out! :huh::huh::huh:

http://www.cree.com/xlamp/sample_xpg.asp


:wow:


----------



## saabluster

rav said:


> Check this out! :huh::huh::huh:
> 
> http://www.cree.com/xlamp/sample_xpg.asp
> 
> 
> :wow:


That is for industry use not the general public.


----------



## uplite

AlexD said:


> It would be interesting to see a graph lm/w/mm^2 v. Cur. for XP-E R2 and XP-G R5 to compare difference in technology.


According to posts in this forum, the XPE die is 0.9mm x 0.9mm and the XPG die is 1.4mm x 1.4mm. Now that the XPGs are public...can someone confirm or deny these numbers?

If you divide marduke's efficacy numbers (lm/W) by 0.81mm2 (XPE) and 1.96mm2 (XPG):

350mA:
XP-E R2 ... 128 lm/W/mm2
XP-G R5 ... 67 lm/W/mm2

700mA:
XP-E R2 ... 106 lm/W/mm2
XP-G R5 ... 58 lm/W/mm2

1000mA:
XP-E R2 ... 90 lm/W/mm2
XP-G R5 ... 52 lm/W/mm2


We might _speculate_ that Cree has left plenty of headroom for S and T bins with the XP-G die. But don't quote me on that. 

-Jeff


----------



## mudman cj

saabluster said:


> Here is a notable quote.
> 
> "we have begun offering limited samples of an S2 flux bin, providing up to 400 lumens at 1A. We target availability of XP-G neutral and warm white LED samples by end of calendar 2009."


----------



## rav

. . .


----------



## jtr1962

uplite said:


> According to posts in this forum, the XPE die is 0.9mm x 0.9mm and the XPG die is 1.4mm x 1.4mm. Now that the XPGs are public...can someone confirm or deny these numbers?
> 
> If you divide marduke's efficacy numbers (lm/W) by 0.81mm2 (XPE) and 1.96mm2 (XPG):
> 
> 350mA:
> XP-E R2 ... 128 lm/W/mm2
> XP-G R5 ... 67 lm/W/mm2
> 
> 700mA:
> XP-E R2 ... 106 lm/W/mm2
> XP-G R5 ... 58 lm/W/mm2
> 
> 1000mA:
> XP-E R2 ... 90 lm/W/mm2
> XP-G R5 ... 52 lm/W/mm2


A better metric for comparison is lumens per mm² at any given current density. For example, at 350 mA the XP-E R2 (or any bin XP-E using the same die size) has a current density of 432 mA/mm². If we assume middle of the bin lumens (118), then we get 118/0.81 or 145.6 lumens/mm² at a current density of 432 mA/mm².

Now let's look at the XP-G R5. In order to obtain the same current density, you need to drive the LED at 847 mA. According to the data sheet, output at 847 mA would be roughly 315 lumens (again assuming middle of the bin lumens at 350 mA). So this comes out to 315/1.96, or 160.7 lumens/mm² at the same current density where the XR-E R2 only managed 145.6 lumens/mm².

In short, this is a significant improvement in output for any given amount of current density. I'll guess at higher current densities, the XP-G has an even greater edge.

I have some R4s on order from Cutter (I think Cutter is shipping R5s for whoever ordered an R4 because that's what they got in first). Whether it's R4 or R5, rest assured I'll be doing tests on it along with plenty of comparisons to the XR-E R2 (which I already tested).


----------



## uplite

jtr1962 said:


> A better metric for comparison is lumens per mm² at any given current density. For example, at 350 mA the XP-E R2 (or any bin XP-E using the same die size) has a current density of 432 mA/mm². If we assume middle of the bin lumens (118), then we get 118/0.81 or 145.6 lumens/mm² at a current density of 432 mA/mm².
> 
> Now let's look at the XP-G R5. In order to obtain the same current density, you need to drive the LED at 847 mA. According to the data sheet, output at 847 mA would be roughly 315 lumens (again assuming middle of the bin lumens at 350 mA). So this comes out to 315/1.96, or 160.7 lumens/mm² at the same current density where the XR-E R2 only managed 145.6 lumens/mm².


That is a very interesting angle! 

Remember to also consider *thermal management*. An emitter driven at 850mA generates about 2x as much heat as one driven at 350mA. Higher temp = lower flux...which may kill any theoretical gains in output. And higher temp = lower VF = higher current = higher runaway potential. If you want to run high currents, it's all about the _system_ thermal design. :thumbsup:

-Jeff


----------



## Marduke

uplite said:


> That is a very interesting angle!



Not really an "angle", but rather industry standard.


----------



## AlexD

jtr1962 said:


> A better metric for comparison is lumens per mmІ at any given current density.


Here Vf difference isn't taken into account. When i offered "a graph lm/w/mm^2 v. Cur." i meant at the same current density not just dividing by die area.


----------



## Marduke

AlexD said:


> Here Vf difference isn't taken into account. When i offered "a graph lm/w/mm^2 v. Cur." i meant at the same current density not just dividing by die area.



The center bin efficancy at those values are nearly identical.


----------



## ubetit

I already have a bunch of useless knowledge (says the wife) in my skull and now you guys are filling it with more.


----------



## AlexD

Marduke said:


> The center bin efficancy at those values are nearly identical.


You mean that Vf of XP-E R2 and XP-G R5 at the same current density are nearly identical ?


----------



## uplite

AlexD said:


> You mean that Vf of XP-E R2 and XP-G R5 at the same current density are nearly identical ?


----------



## znomit

I thought the smaller die was only in use on some XR-Es. XR-Es are still in limited release in R2(check the cree datasheet, no R2 listed), hence the output comparisons with the XP-G are done with XR-E Q5s. What bin are the smaller die XR-Es?


----------



## Marduke

AlexD said:


> You mean that Vf of XP-E R2 and XP-G R5 at the same current density are nearly identical ?




Efficacy, not necessairly Vf (don't have the raw data in front of me). The flux vs I plays a role too. 

However, I was mistaken above. I was looking at the R4 curve and not the R5 curve. At the same current density, the XP-G R5 is ~5 lm/W more than the XP-E R2.


----------



## uplite

znomit said:


> I thought the smaller die was only in use on some XR-Es. XR-Es are still in limited release in R2(check the cree datasheet, no R2 listed), hence the output comparisons with the XP-G are done with XR-E Q5s. What bin are the smaller die XR-Es?


IIRC, the recent XR-Es and XP-Es have the same die size, about 40% of the area of an XP-G. Disclaimer: Those measurements come from other folks in this forum. 

The much larger XP-G die will give you more lumens, naturally, even if efficacy/area is lower.

As jtr1962 mentioned, IN THEORY, you can drive an XP-G R5 at high current to get similar efficacy/current density as an XP-E R2. However...bear in mind that *heat* is a REAL-WORLD factor at higher currents. Cree quotes most of their datasheet specs for Tj = 25 degrees C... :laughing:

-Jeff


----------



## TorchBoy

It's daylight again down under. Is http://www.philipslumileds.com/pdfs/DS23.PDF what you need Marduke?


----------



## AlexD

uplite said:


> IIRC, the recent XR-Es and XP-Es have the same die size, about 40% of the area of an XP-G. Disclaimer: Those measurements come from other folks in this forum.
> 
> The much larger XP-G die will give you more lumens, naturally, even if efficacy/area is lower.
> 
> As jtr1962 mentioned, IN THEORY, you can drive an XP-G R5 at high current to get similar efficacy/current density as an XP-E R2. However...bear in mind that *heat* is a REAL-WORLD factor at higher currents. Cree quotes most of their datasheet specs for Tj = 25 degrees C... :laughing:
> 
> -Jeff


XP-G is better XP-E due to 2 factor:
1) larger area
2) more lumens and efficacy by mm^2 at the same current density (or less as you think)
And now we are talking about a graph which would represent the second factor more clear.


----------



## Marduke

TorchBoy said:


> It's daylight again down under. Is http://www.philipslumileds.com/pdfs/DS23.PDF what you need Marduke?



Yes, but because they were only rated for 1 watt, there is only a comparrison out to 350mA


----------



## TorchBoy

http://www.philipslumileds.com/pdfs/DS46.PDF is the Luxeon III.


----------



## ergotelis

I think it is important to add here, i did some tests with xp-e and carlco and ims reflectors. At 20mm, i could get about 7000 lux and good beam with IMS, xp-e is R2 driven at exactly 1amp. So, for your mods, i guess xp-g+IMs is a win!Though, i found it strange the fact that i could see the lighting emitter outside the reflector! Carlco has not that problems, but it seems to focus a bit less(about 5000+ lux) with a better beam i think.


----------



## liquidsix

TorchBoy said:


> http://www.philipslumileds.com/pdfs/DS46.PDF is the Luxeon III.



Wow, if I understand correctly (and I doubt I do), it was just 3 years ago leds could do 70 lumens at 1A, and now we have the S2 which can do 400 at 1A? Amazing. Good time to be a flashaholic.


----------



## outersquare

saabluster said:


> Here is a notable quote.
> 
> "we have begun offering limited samples of an S2 flux bin, providing up to 400 lumens at 1A. We target availability of XP-G neutral and warm white LED samples by end of calendar 2009."


 

wow, 400L/1A single dies?

would be nice if someone made a P60 module with that.


----------



## Glenn7

liquidsix said:


> Wow, if I understand correctly (and I doubt I do), it was just 3 years ago leds could do 70 lumens at 1A, and now we have the S2 which can do 400 at 1A? Amazing. Good time to be a flashaholic.



Yeah and I keep hearing people on CPF say leds aren't getting much brighter and they are at the end of this technology and cant/wont compete with HID - I say Hmmmm....... we'll see :tinfoil::tinfoil::tinfoil:


----------



## baterija

uplite said:


> Remember to also consider *thermal management*. An emitter driven at 850mA generates about 2x as much heat as one driven at 350mA. Higher temp = lower flux...which may kill any theoretical gains in output. And higher temp = lower VF = higher current = higher runaway potential. If you want to run high currents, it's all about the _system_ thermal design. :thumbsup:



For the comparison Jtr was making thermal management is irrelevant. His computed numbers of higher lumens/current density are all about showing some of the other improvements in the XP-G. His computations simply demonstrate that the changes are not strictly explained by lower current density due to the bigger die. There is something there besides just cutting the dies bigger. One of your early questions was whether Cree is just cutting poor quality wafers into bigger dies to sell. His numbers seem to indicate exactly the opposite.

Now for real world applications like flashlights thermal management is a key design factor. The XP-G will make thermal management easier though. It produces less waste heat versus an XR-E or XP-E whether you compare at constant output, constant drive current, or constant input power thanks to the improved lumens per watt. It also has lower thermal resistance so its easier to move heat away from the emitter. There are already plenty of lights that push high currents, and manage the heat. The XP-G would produce *less* thermal issues with those same designs.


----------



## Marduke

Now, I must say I was actually surprised when I saw this graph for the first time after I clicked "Finish". 

Here is what I choose to do:
I attempted to pick the major LED's that CPF has been lusting since high flux LED's came out. Since Lux I's only go to 350mA and the rest go higher, I choose to go with Lux III's, figuring they are close enough to be representative of the time. Just so you know, I did NOT "cherry pick" these bins to make the graph look as clean as it does. Why did I choose the bins I did? I attempted to choose the bins which are not necessarily the lowest or highest in a model's lifecycle, but rather what was an earlier "popular CPF" bin available in reasonable quantity early in the lifecycle. The "game changers" if you will.

With that in mind, I choose Lux III T, XR-E P4, XP-E R2, and XP-G R5. 

The moment of truth:








LED's have indeed came a LONG way in such a short time.

Enjoy...


----------



## 4sevens

Marduke said:


> Now, I must say I was actually surprised when I saw this graph for the first time after I clicked "Finish".
> 
> Here is what I choose to do:
> I attempted to pick the major LED's that CPF has been lusting since high flux LED's came out. Since Lux I's only go to 350mA and the rest go higher, I choose to go with Lux III's, figuring they are close enough to be representative of the time. Just so you know, I did NOT "cherry pick" these bins to make the graph look as clean as it does. Why did I choose the bins I did? I attempted to choose the bins which are not necessarily the lowest or highest in a model's lifecycle, but rather what was an earlier "popular CPF" bin available in reasonable quantity early in the lifecycle. The "game changers" if you will.
> 
> With that in mind, I choose Lux III T, XR-E P4, XP-E R2, and XP-G R5.
> 
> The moment of truth:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LED's have indeed came a LONG way in such a short time.
> 
> Enjoy...


Great work Marduke! I very clearly remember the jump from Lux III to the new XR-E P4 at the end of 2006 and at the beginning of 2007 with the Fenix P1D. It was a smash hit! That was one of the reasons Fenix caught on so quick (that and my marketing and distribution efforts).

It's nice to see the jump to XPE's and now XPG's are similar in magnitude.

Additionally, it's astonishing to see how flat the XPG curve is. The "droop" as people call it here is greatly diminished (I don't think it'll ever go away, it's just scale is different - ie. zoom out and you have a similar droop). This indicates some serious technological advancements with lowering the Vf which directly affects the generation of heat.

I have to repeat what so many have said in this thread. What an exciting time to be in with these LED advancements!


----------



## Gryloc

Hey there. I have been watching this thread and was unsure how to provide more clarification. This is an exciting time, and thanks, Marduke, for creating those initial graphs. Thank you, jtr1962, for bringing us some experience and for your actual measurements that assisted with some estimates of mine.

Those initial graphs were informative, but I wanted to see more (and I am not going to yell at you, he he). Therefore, I dove back in and created some graphs and charts over the past week. Efficiency comparisons are neat to see, but they do not tell much about performance versus the current input seeing how Cree does not even bin their forward voltage (which can greatly affect the efficiency from reel to reel). So, because I was used to the charts that were created from jtr1962 over the years (again, thank you!), I created my charts like his.

Since the XP-G has a die with an area of 2mm^2, I wanted to estimate the performance of the new emitter by pretending that I attached two dies from the XP-E in parallel and attaching them to the same XP-E package. The results will not be the same as that of measuring the output of an XP-G, but I found that the results are strikingly close! BTW, I am just going for the electrical and physical characteristics of the XP-E with double the die area of the EZ1000 die. I believe that the EZ900 (Gen II) did not exist at the time of jtr1962's testing of the XP-E, so I am not going to touch comparing this new generation of EZxxxx dies.

You can do the same with nearly any LED with more than 1mm^2 die area. The current density decreases with the increase in die area (if current stays constant) because the current is divided somewhat evenly between the entire surface. Since the current density drops, then naturally the Vf and the luminous efficiency will scale rather linearly, and will be lower! Try it out, divide the current and lumen measurements from a P7 emitter or even the large SST-90 emitter, and you will find that they act very similar to multiple 1mm^2 dies wired in parallel.

So, the following is the estimations of the characteristics of the new XP-G emitter:




(click for full-sized view)

Notice that in the above tables, I took the performance of the XP-E R2 bin, and pretended that I connected two in parallel. I doubled the current and luminous flux column as though the two are in parallel, and there was born some similar characteristics of the XP-G (albeit just the R3 bin equivalent). Vf stays the same since the die area is in parallel, so the total power will not change too much (hence the XP-G will run cooler). Notice the 248% increase of brightness at 1000mA compared to at 350mA (like what is stated in the datasheets and press releases). Pretty close. So, by multiplying the flux by an 1.13, the emitter begins to fall into the R5 bin. Notice the 140lm at 350mA and 346lm at 1000mA? Again pretty close to what was released in the press releases.


Next I show both the efficiency- and luminous flux versus forward current comparison in the form of a graph. I compared four bits of data: 
-Actual measurements of the Cree XR-E R2 bin, 
-A scaled up version of the XR-E curve to fit into the R5 bin (to make a dramatic comparison with the estimated XP-G R5)
-The estimated performance of the XP-G R5 (the efficiency relied on the forward voltage data of the tested XP-E R2)
-The data that I "extracted" or "digitized" manually from Cree's documents. I got the relative output versus forward current data from both the XP-G datasheet, and the forward voltage versus forward current data came from the same May 2009 Announcement document released that Marduke used. I scaled the relative output curve to fit into being a R5 bin (~139lm at 350mA). 

Unfortunately, I digitized this data carefully by overlaying a transparent graph in Excel over the original pictures of the graphs, so my raw data is not as exact as Marduke's, nor is the data resolution as high. I believe that they are pretty close, though. Please treat my data as being very close, but not exactly the same as Cree's exact measurements.

These four series of data were overlaid in a single graph below:




(click for full-sized view)

I was happy to see that the curve for luminous flux versus current sat very closely to that of the simulation of the two paralleled XP-E dies. I understand why the efficiency curve would not overlay because I used actual data of the XP-E R2 sample that jtr1962 owned compared to what Cree released (which compared to any datasheet Vf info from Cree, your results may vary).

Finally, here is the raw "digitized" data that I got from the Cree documents put in the familiar form. I hope it saves others the pain of extracting data from pictures of graphs. 




(click for full-sized view)


I hope these estimates can create a better picture as to how the new XP-G could act. Again, because Cree does not bin the Vf, efficiency will vary from part to part as usual. 

Finally, do not forget that I used the curve from that of the XP-E, so I am not sure how the tiny emitter will fare with higher currents compared to my estimates. I displayed my data up to 1500mA to allow us to drool more, but I do not recommend operating the XP-G past its maximum rated current unless you know what you are doing. Actual luminous flux throughout the curve will also vary because your R5-binned XP-G will produce 139lm of output minimum at 350mA (so yours may produce more output at 350mA and at higher currents). Heatsinking and forward voltage will affect whether or not you will achieve a 250% increase in output at 1000mA versus 350mA.

Again these are not apple to apple comparisons, but more like apple-shaped-orange to apple comparisons :thinking:. I can add another bin of XP-G or other emitters to the graph later, but I do not know if I have the patience like Marduke to make that many versions of the graph :bow:. I do not plan on making a graph with the same curves, but only one bin lower either . 

If more info can be shared on the S2 bin, that would be great! I know the flux range at 350mA, but this press release shows how an XP-G of some bin (S2?) can output 400lm at 1000mA, which does not jive with my curves at all!

BTW, I played with the idea of comparing the many bins of emitters using the EZ900, EZ1000, and the estimated "EZ1400" dies based on die area, but I ended up with messy and somewhat conflicting results (due to my limited amount of actual data, or lack of flux figures of the XP-G to use). 

Please leave comments and inform me of errors, or if I am mistaken with the concept of treating large dies like multiple 1mm^2 dies. Thanks!

Cheers,
-Tony


EDIT: Sorry for such high res pics (after you keep clicking on them to zoom in). I am too used to DSL and Cable internet. Plus, sorry for the weird color shifting happening to the text in my pictures. Between Excel '07, PSP 8, and image shack, there is something going on with the letters and lines. Please inform me via PM if any "anti-aliasing" or softening features can be turned off in Excel. Thanks for your patience.


----------



## ICUDoc

Marduke thanks for your (gentlemanly) contributions to this thread. I like the choice of emitters- I think it shows your recollection of CPF pop-culture! I remember "T" bins were highly sought after, and the subsequent jumps you illustrate were all quantum leaps in CPF lumen-lust. Thanks again!


----------



## Marduke

FYI, the efficacy charts above DO take Vf into account, even though the binning structure does not (directly). When you compute the curve for lm/W, the Vf is accounted for in that calculation.


----------



## Moddoo

outersquare said:


> wow, 400L/1A single dies?
> 
> would be nice if someone made a P60 module with that.



How about 3 of them?
:devil:


----------



## manoloco

Are you saying that the Modoo triple cree XP-G drop-in waitlist will be for S2 ones!?!?... :kiss:


are you trying to get 700+ lumens regulated OTF from a single cell???


----------



## Yoda4561

I'm somehow drawn to the prospect of a 400 lumen fenix LOD sized monster.


----------



## icaruz

Moddoo said:


> How about 3 of them?
> :devil:



Lucky i'm on the waiting list...moddoo, please use S2 if its avail anyway..


----------



## TorchBoy

Marduke said:


> With that in mind, I choose Lux III T, XR-E P4, XP-E R2, and XP-G R5.
> 
> The moment of truth:
> ...
> LED's have indeed came a LONG way in such a short time.
> 
> Enjoy...


Indeed, I enjoyed reading that very much, scrolling down one line at a time so I could savour every word before the graph was revealed. It's perfect; just what I wanted. Thank you! :twothumbs

When does the XR-G come out?


----------



## znomit

TorchBoy said:


> When does the XR-G come out?



A few days ago!
Cutter is shipping already.


----------



## TorchBoy

I'm asking about the X*R*-G in the wrong thread, sorry.


----------



## Marduke

Probably never, the XP package gives a better spatial distribution and thermal charistics while being smaller (fitting old XR packages).


----------



## Moddoo

manoloco said:


> Are you saying that the Modoo triple cree XP-G drop-in waitlist will be for S2 ones!?!?... :kiss:
> 
> 
> are you trying to get 700+ lumens regulated OTF from a single cell???



I will not speak of the S2 yet.

Even the XPG R4 x3 should yield those #s OTF.

The XPE R2 Triple is 560 OTF, and 530 OTF after warm up.


----------



## monanza

icaruz said:


> Lucky i'm on the waiting list...moddoo, please use S2 if its avail anyway..


Umm... What waiting list? Am I missing yet another great dropin?


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

I knew I shoulda sold my spot on the waiting list instead of dropping out >.<


----------



## HarryN

One thing that is somewhat under-stated in these developments (for all of the mfgs) is the improvement not only in the die quality, but also the package, esp. thermal management. We have watched the junction resistance drop by 50+ % across the board, and a few suppliers have even reached < 2 C / watt - an amazing accomplishment.

I am looking forward to seeing how these packages really work at 60 C heat sink temps, not just the insta - flash testing results. That is where the rubber really meets the road, and very few LEDs have yet been tested there AFAIK.

It will also be interesting to see how Cree has implemented the anti-droop technology. Lumileds has some interesting IP in this area, although I think all of these "big guys" have more or less agreed not to sue each other, which is a good thing.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

anybody still do neat breakdowns like newbie?


----------



## KeithInAsia

I picked up some samples. Just mounted them but haven't had a chance to give them a trial run. 

Price is not that good when compared to Luxeon Rebels. I'm hearing 3 to 4 bucks each. Rebels which are similar in output are down below 3.


----------



## Gryloc

jtr1962, evan9162, saabluster, McGizmo (sorry if I am forgetting someone). They may not have the resources to do destructive testing, teardowns, close-up photography (or all three) just like Newbie, but their insight, testing, and experience are very beneficial to us modders and designers! Actually the previous statement is an understatement because they are great people that are valuable like Newbie to me.


----------



## Data

come back Newbie . . . come back . . . :mecry:


----------



## Gryloc

I was just wondering, but how was the logic in my last post with the output and efficiency vs forward current graphs of the XP-G? I was hoping that they could be useful to those interested in the XP-G, but I was unsure if I made any errors. I know long posts discourage some readers, but hoped that the links to pictures of my estimations would have been interesting to look at and skip to. Thanks.

-Tony


----------



## jtr1962

Gryloc said:


> I was just wondering, but how was the logic in my last post with the output and efficiency vs forward current graphs of the XP-G? I was hoping that they could be useful to those interested in the XP-G, but I was unsure if I made any errors. I know long posts discourage some readers, but hoped that the links to pictures of my estimations would have been interesting to look at and skip to. Thanks.


I read through the entire post and your assumptions were quite reasonable. The only minor detail is that the XP-G has a higher thermal junction-to-pad impedance than two XP-Es in parallel. The XP-G has a thermal impedance of 6°C/W while the XP-E is 9°C/W (and two in parallel are 4.5°C/W). However, the effect would be slight. Even at 2000 mA, the die of the XP-G would be less than 10°C warmer. Going by the relative flux versus junction temperature graph (page 3 of the XP-G data sheet), that would reduce output by under 2%. Other than this minor detail, which barely affects the final results, you did a great job.

Now we'll see how close my empirical results match your predictions once my XP-Gs arrive. BTW, I'm pretty confident that an R5 XP-G will be able to break 600 lumens.


----------



## vali

Nice graphs Marduke.

Uhmm... seems to me that LEDs follow Moore's law too.


----------



## lolzertank

vali said:


> Uhmm... seems to me that LEDs follow Moore's law too.



Not exactly.


----------



## TorchBoy

That graph is quite out of date now. Um... Marduke? (Just kidding!)


----------



## yellow

> Rebels which are similar in output are down below 3.


Äääähhhh ????
:thinking:
they are?

again I seem to remember wrong? For just another time while reading this thread. 
imho rebels at full (1.5 A) were about the same than XR-E at full (800 mA), so in fact rebels should be less good
(for me same brightness at considerably more power is not similar)


----------



## Gryloc

Yellow,

I dislike when you make statements to shoot down any product from Lumileds without adding important details. You cannot compare the Rebel with the XR-E at that kind of current level because the Rebel was never designed to be run like that. The Rebel is the most comparable to the XP-E and XP-G (kind of). Comparing the XR-E to the Rebel is almost like comparing the SST-50 to the XR-E as it is unfair. In addition, the two emitters are technically in different price classes (Rebel designed somewhat for value and the XR-E more for performance). Most importantly, you cannot make such hollow claims without specifying flux bins for each thing you compare. You know that the XR-E can range from a <P2 to R2 and the Rebel from the 0040 to 0100.

So, assuming that you are comparing the better bins, I wanted to create a quick chart comparing the Rebel 0100 (both cool and neutral) with the XP-E R2 and the XR-E P4, Q5, and R2. Luckily I was armed with actual test data to a nice range of Lumileds, Cree, and SSC emitters from jtr1962 (I cannot thank him enough). Though these are just samples of the given bins (YRMV), they still work well for comparisons.

Below shows the Rebel 0100 curves at up to 1500mA (jtr tested them up to 2A) to see how they fare. You will see they perform as well as the XP-E at 1500mA, and they are pretty close to each other even at lower current levels. You would be correct that the XR-E R2 performs better than the Rebel 0100 cool white, but you were wrong at how they compare in output. I kindly darkened the 800mA mark where you say that the "Rebel at 1500mA performs the same as the XR-E at 800mA". The XR-E at 1200mA is comparable, however.

Comparison (max 1500mA)



(Click on for larger view)

The smaller emitters (XP-E and Rebel) were designed to run at 700mA where heat does not hurt performance as much to 1500mA. Below is another graph to compare the same emitters at lower currents (where the details were more difficult to make out in the above graph). At these lower currents, the emitters perform more closely to each other.

Comparison (max 700mA)



(Click on for larger view)

Please be more careful before you make these hollow claims with different types of emitters so other unsuspecting members take them as fact. 

To the rest, I apologize for getting off track from the original topic... I just wanted to extinguish a small fire. 

-Tony


----------



## mudman cj

Thanks for taking the time to make those graphs, Gryloc. It would be great if you could also add a commonly available neutral bin such as the Q3 for XP-E and/or XR-E. It think it would show that neutral Rebel 100 outguns the neutral competition if they were plotted out to their maximum rated currents, at least until the XP-G comes out in neutral that is.


----------



## Curt R

The XR-E may have a short life, Cree may discontinue it soon. I make that prediction because the K2 and the K2-TFFC is now dead replaced by the Rebel. 

Curt


----------



## Marduke

Gryloc said:


> Yellow,
> 
> I dislike when you make statements to shoot down any product from Lumileds without adding important details. You cannot compare the Rebel with the XR-E at that kind of current level because the Rebel was never designed to be run like that. The Rebel is the most comparable to the XP-E and XP-G (kind of). Comparing the XR-E to the Rebel is almost like comparing the SST-50 to the XR-E as it is unfair. In addition, the two emitters are technically in different price classes (Rebel designed somewhat for value and the XR-E more for performance). Most importantly, you cannot make such hollow claims without specifying flux bins for each thing you compare. You know that the XR-E can range from a <P2 to R2 and the Rebel from the 0040 to 0100.



As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words:


----------



## Calina

Curt R said:


> The XR-E may have a short life, Cree may discontinue it soon. I make that prediction because the K2 and the K2-TFFC is now dead replaced by the Rebel.
> 
> Curt


 
I think you are right. Other arguments: the XR-E is more expensive to make, it hasn't been upgraded to a higher bin than R2, it is responsible for the infamous Cree ring.


----------



## taschenlampe

Marduke said:


> As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words:


 

I think this graph is showing a RB090 rather than a RB100 :thinking:

tl


----------



## HarryN

Curt R said:


> The XR-E may have a short life, Cree may discontinue it soon. I make that prediction because the K2 and the K2-TFFC is now dead replaced by the Rebel.
> 
> Curt




Curt - this is a misunderstanding of the applications. The rebel fits an entirely different power range of applications than the K2, similarly, their Altilon product is also for a different market.


----------



## Marduke

taschenlampe said:


> I think this graph is showing a RB090 rather than a RB100 :thinking:
> 
> tl



No, it's RB100.


----------



## lolzertank

HarryN said:


> Curt - this is a misunderstanding of the applications. The rebel fits an entirely different power range of applications than the K2, similarly, their Altilon product is also for a different market.



Not true. 

From Lumileds' website: 

LUXEON K2 and K2 with TFFC are no longer available for new designs. Customers should contact their account representatives to discuss the availability of LUXEON K2 and K2 with TFFC, for information regarding tools available to assist you in migrating to LUXEON Rebel White or LUXEON Rebel Color. Philips Lumileds appreciates your business and looks forward to continuing to support you through the product transition.


----------



## HarryN

Wow - I stand corrected. I did notice that they don't want "new designs" based on them, but that means you can still get them. Still - what a loss. Sorry for the OT.


----------



## degarb

When is the rb130 coming out?


----------



## CampingLED

degarb said:


> When is the rb130 coming out?


 
Sorry for this, but after the RB110 & RB120.


----------



## Curt R

I posted the discontinuance of the K2 line and the probable XR death because of the comparisons made between the XP-G and the others. Even tho they are different in design from the XP-G. the XP-G will be used as a direct replacement in flashlight design. 

The discontinuance of the K2 is an unexpected problem and a hindrance in bringing new flashlight designs to the market. Peak was developing for release in October and November new lights using the K2 as that would be a small engineering step from our current light designs using the Seoul P4 U2 bin LEDs. The only practical replacement is the new XP-G. The problems now include a redesign of thermal management, suitable optics that will fit head diameters and availability of bins with the proper color tint, output and forward voltage that may or may not be in the product pipeline. 

Optics is the most important feature of a flashlight as everything else is designed around those. As of right now there are no optics designed for the XP-G LED in the commercial market. It will be a trial and experiment to find suitable units. The wrong optics can be a disaster. As an example with a Carclo optic and the XR-E driven at 100 Lumens, the Candela out the front is 1400 and with the XP-E driven at the same 100 Lumens it is 4600. Raw power from the LED is important but finding the correct optic makes or breaks a flashlights usefulness. 

In our current Eiger AAA flashlight that uses a Rebel 0100, the switch to the XP-G should not be a problem. The output would more than likely increase by about 30% from the #8 power level Eiger of 100 Lumens and 500 Candela to 130 Lumens and 700 Candela using the XP-G and a 10440 Lithium-Ion battery. (The original Arc LS was 25-30 Lumens at 350 Candela). In the larger lights that were to use the K2 at 1.5 amps drive current the XP-G should give the same output with 50% less battery usage, that means longer run times and less generated heat in terms of watts of energy. Another positive is that we would then be able to stock a smaller number of different LEDs. The results in the end will be a better product for the buyer but a pain in the other end for us designers. (Short time only). 

Another thought, Seoul has complained that they have not been given the latest die for the anticipated P4 V bin and P7 E bin LEDs. Will this new die lead to a P4 W bin and a P7 F bin? 

Curt


----------



## xenonk

Calina said:


> I think you are right. Other arguments: the XR-E is more expensive to make, it hasn't been upgraded to a higher bin than R2, it is responsible for the infamous Cree ring.


That dang metal collar...

I'd be satisfied if they just kept the XP-E around alongside the XP-G for the smaller die, though manufacturer quality control with regards to LED centering should get fun without a collar acting as a guide.


----------



## Toohotruk

xenonk said:


> That dang metal collar...
> 
> I'd be satisfied if they just kept the XP-E around alongside the XP-G for the smaller die, though manufacturer quality control with regards to LED centering should get fun without a collar acting as a guide.



7777 has solved the centering problem with his design...


----------



## [email protected]

Interesting... Can't they alter the dome optic to have a smaller apparent die size?


----------



## moviles

the xp-g its maybe the the best for small flashlights powered with 14500 .

but i don't like some thinks about the XP-G package

the xr-e with *0.9*mm2 (ez900 chip)allows *up to 1000ma* and the xp-g with *2*mm2 allows only *1000 ma max* http://www.cree.com/products/xlamp.asp

I like the small lens but not the small thermal contact surface of xp-e and xp-g packages

the XR-E with *0.9*mm2 (ez900 chip)give around *250* lumens @1a
the sst-50 with *5*mm2 give *1250* lumens @5a (close to 5x250)
the sst-90 with *9*mm2 give *2250* lumens @9a (close to 9x250)

the XP-G with *2*mm2 must work at 2 amp and for be better must give more than 250x2 =*500* [email protected] amp but maybe the small thermal contact surface don't allows drive it at 2 amp


----------



## how2

Can get the XP-G R4 for only £2($3.2) each but i have to buy a reel (£2000). 

I expect it to cost £6 in the shops.

I just want about 2 or 3.


----------



## IMSabbel

Hm. Looking at the spec sheet i realized something that did not occure to me before:

The emission pattern of the XP-G is _significantly_ wider than the one of te XPE. We are talking about a FWHM of 60 deg vs 40 deg here.
So even with the bigger die, it should be possible for a reflector to collect more light with the same deepness.

And about the rated current: I have the feeling that cree is very conservative here.


----------



## mudman cj

I was thinking the same thing. This LED should be capable of good throw with the right reflector. I have a KL6 that should work well. :naughty: It is not surprising to hear that the XP-G lacks throw when used with an aspheric lens (from another thread). I think the larger die size and the broad emission angle both contribute to poor performance with aspheric optics.


----------



## Curt R

Moviles:

This may be important in the ability of the XP-G in terms of power drive.
The Rebel @ 10 degrees C/W, the XR-E @ 8 degrees C/W and the XP-E @ 9 degrees C/W all are 1 amp data sheet limited. The K2-TFFC @ 5.5 degrees C/W at 1.5 amps. The XP-G is 6 degrees C/W. Drive current is going to be limited to thermal management and bond wire capability, and that we will be able to determine by testing. At 1.5 amps the XP-G may be able to produce 420/440 Lumens!?

Curt


----------



## MichaelW

*what shall lumileds do?*

What is the largest die that can fit in the rebel package?

If Cree has the high ground, xp-g 2mm^square, low ground xp-c, and middle ground, xp-e
Shouldn't the rebel go for the 'intermediate' ground?

So should the strategy be:
'BIG' rebel 1.5mm^square, and 'lil' rebel 0.75mm^square.
maybe rating them for 1500mA and 750mA would help?


----------



## BentHeadTX

Sounds like the recipe for some screaming Peaks to me. The C/W at 6C is a great improvement so the K2 will have a good replacement.


----------



## old4570

moviles said:


> the xp-g its maybe the the best for small flashlights powered with 14500 .
> 
> but i don't like some thinks about the XP-G package
> 
> the xr-e with *0.9*mm2 (ez900 chip)allows *up to 1000ma* and the xp-g with *2*mm2 allows only *1000 ma max* http://www.cree.com/products/xlamp.asp
> 
> I like the small lens but not the small thermal contact surface of xp-e and xp-g packages
> 
> the XR-E with *0.9*mm2 (ez900 chip)give around *250* lumens @1a
> the sst-50 with *5*mm2 give *1250* lumens @5a (close to 5x250)
> the sst-90 with *9*mm2 give *2250* lumens @9a (close to 9x250)
> 
> the XP-G with *2*mm2 must work at 2 amp and for be better must give more than 250x2 =*500* [email protected] amp but maybe the small thermal contact surface don't allows drive it at 2 amp



The 10mm Base is to small , id like to see 14-15-16mm for a larger thermal footprint for transferring heat away from the XP-G ..

A 2A mine started @ around 400Lumen but quickly faded down to around the 340 level ... 
A larger base/star may help absorb and transfer this heat .


----------



## Curt R

The XP-G went to 6 degrees C/W from the XP-E at 9 degrees C/W by just increasing the size of the die only. Everything else remained the same. That would indicate that the thermal transfer to the base of the LED is vertical and not horizontal, otherwise the XP-E would also be the same as the XP-G. If that is true then increasing the LED to 4 mm per side may not accomplish better thermal management. The much larger surface area of the K2 is 5.5 degrees C/W. The K2 base is metal whereas the XP-G is ceramic, (sintered aluminum oxide - rusted aluminum). 

As a replacement for the K2 the XP-G R4 should give the same Lumen output at 900 mA drive as the K2-0220 at 1.5 amps. More battery run time and less heat. Also the XP-G S2 version seams to have the same output per current input up to about 1.5 amps as the Seoul P7 LED. The Seoul P7 has a 3 degree C/W thermal transfer and a larger metal base than the MC-E even thou both have the same 3 degree C/W thermal transfer rate. With that increased size of the metal base the P7 can be driven harder than the MC-E. Horizontal and vertical thermal with metal, limited horizontal transfer with ceramic.

Curt


----------



## xenonk

Toohotruk said:


> 7777 has solved the centering problem with his design...


I've got a Quark and am aware of this, but I don't expect that design will extend to other manufacturers. Particularly all the budget brands. I've seen badly-centered XR-Es even with the metal collar they could have used as a guide.



[email protected] said:


> Interesting... Can't they alter the dome optic to have a smaller apparent die size?


This is pretty much what happened when they went from the XR-E package to XP-E.


----------



## moviles

old4570 said:


> The 10mm Base is to small , id like to see 14-15-16mm for a larger thermal footprint for transferring heat away from the XP-G ..
> .



I think the same thing



old4570 said:


> A 2A mine started @ around 400Lumen but quickly faded down to around the 340 level ...
> A larger base/star may help absorb and transfer this heat .



:mecry:OMG pfffffffff never mind. I will buy some XP-G....maybe at 1.5-1.8 amp....


----------



## Toohotruk

xenonk said:


> I've got a Quark and am aware of this, but I don't expect that design will extend to other manufacturers...




HERE.

But you're right, I'm sure it's a proprietary thing...


----------



## RyanA

Curt R said:


> Optics is the most important feature of a flashlight as everything else is designed around those. As of right now there are no optics designed for the XP-G LED in the commercial market. It will be a trial and experiment to find suitable units. The wrong optics can be a disaster. As an example with a Carclo optic and the XR-E driven at 100 Lumens, the Candela out the front is 1400 and with the XP-E driven at the same 100 Lumens it is 4600. Raw power from the LED is important but finding the correct optic makes or breaks a flashlights usefulness.
> 
> In our current Eiger AAA flashlight that uses a Rebel 0100, the switch to the XP-G should not be a problem. The output would more than likely increase by about 30% from the #8 power level Eiger of 100 Lumens and 500 Candela to 130 Lumens and 700 Candela using the XP-G and a 10440 Lithium-Ion battery. (The original Arc LS was 25-30 Lumens at 350 Candela). In the larger lights that were to use the K2 at 1.5 amps drive current the XP-G should give the same output with 50% less battery usage, that means longer run times and less generated heat in terms of watts of energy. Another positive is that we would then be able to stock a smaller number of different LEDs. The results in the end will be a better product for the buyer but a pain in the other end for us designers. (Short time only).
> 
> 
> Curt



This hit the nail right on the head for me. OPTICS baby! The one thing that really gets me excited about the XP package is not having to use the long wonky reflectors that were necessary with the XR's. Imagine this if you will. Novatac/RA build, Smo/Shallow (Khatod/IMS 20?) novatac/ra like reflector/beam, and novatac/ra UI, all with XP-G efficacy... I'm already drooling in my imagination.


----------



## saabluster

RyanA said:


> The one thing that really gets me excited about the XP package is not having to use the long wonky reflectors that were necessary with the XR's.



If you want a good thrower you will still need deep reflectors. The most collimated portion of the beam comes from the very edge of the reflector. The farther away that edge is the more collimated it will be. With the XP-G you will need an even deeper reflector for equal throw as the XR to compensate for the reduction in surface brightness. Of course this assumes one is not terribly overdriving the XP-G.


----------



## old4570

moviles said:


> I think the same thing
> 
> 
> 
> :mecry:OMG pfffffffff never mind. I will buy some XP-G....maybe at 1.5-1.8 amp....



Wont help ... My second R5 runs 1.5A to the LED and suffers just the same ..
Only Runs a little better , starts around 380+ and sags to 340 ...

Im just waiting ATM for a 1A driver and a new XP-E pill ...

Overdriving might just be a waste of time ... Or make a great hand warmer . 
I just dont have any spare 1A drivers ATM to see how they run limited to 1A .
But it could yield the same result .. 340OTF possibly ... 

Just waiting on parts ATM ..


----------



## [email protected]

One thing I can comment on is the low low vf. Tested a couple that I was shipping out by hooking it up to a cr123a of unknown condition. Plenty bright!


----------



## Nitroz

saabluster said:


> If you want a good thrower you will still need deep reflectors. The most collimated portion of the beam comes from the very edge of the reflector. The farther away that edge is the more collimated it will be. With the XP-G you will need an even deeper reflector for equal throw as the XR to compensate for the reduction in surface brightness. Of course this assumes one is not terribly overdriving the XP-G.




Isn't the XP-G closer to the viewing angle of the Luxeon III than it is the XR-E?

The Luxeon III in a shallow mag reflector had a fairly tight focus.


----------



## saabluster

Nitroz said:


> Isn't the XP-G closer to the viewing angle of the Luxeon III than it is the XR-E?
> 
> The Luxeon III in a shallow mag reflector had a fairly tight focus.


Yes it is closer to the LuxIII.


----------



## Pascal-Fr

Hello, this is a day that I discovered this new LED, but I can not find a photo of achievement, or photo beam with different lenses? You have any links to me? 
Thank you


----------



## Burgess

to Pascal-Fr --


Welcome to CandlePowerForums !


:welcome:



These new XP-G emitters promise to be *Very Exciting*.


----------



## orbital

RyanA said:


> This hit the nail right on the head for me. OPTICS baby! The one thing that really gets me excited about the XP package is not having to use the long wonky reflectors that were necessary with the XR's. Imagine this if you will. Novatac/RA build, Smo/Shallow (Khatod/IMS 20?) novatac/ra like reflector/beam, and novatac/ra UI, all with XP-G efficacy... I'm already drooling in my imagination.



+1 for optics

hopefully, it wont be too long before the best_ degree angle_ is figured out for the XP-G w/ optics.
*hmmm, wonder what Gene M. is thinkin'*

Bigger question,..how long before the neutral tints are available?


----------



## Kestrel

orbital said:


> +hopefully, it wont be too long before the best_ degree angle_ is figured out for the XP-G w/ optics.
> *hmmm, wonder what Gene M. is thinkin'*


My thoughts exactly. :thumbsup:


----------



## MichaelW

orbital said:


> how long before the neutral tints are available?



Does anyone know how many steps behind that neutral/warm will be?

Traditional minus two perhaps
so Q4-R3 neutral?
and Q2-Q5 warm?


----------



## Curt R

Just got in 100 XP-G LEDs and had some circuit boards made for them. I had been concerned about hand soldering them because they are rather small. Some others had mentioned problems soldering with the XP-E LEDs previously and I didn't look forward to the job with much enthusiasm. After solder blobbing the pads I discovered that all I had to do was to place the LED somewhere close to the proper location and apply the iron tip to the heat transfer pad. The solder melted, the LED aligned itself and settled down in the correct location. Even if it was 10 or 20 thousands off center and 10 to 15 degrees off angle it floated into the correct position. The last batch of 24 LEDs took less than 30 seconds each and I didn't even have to lay down the soldering iron once. I normally solder small parts like this with the aid of a 20 power 3D microscope just to be careful and so was able to watch the LED settle in. This is turning out to be a great little LED. Powerful and easy to use.

Curt


----------



## regulator

This is turning out to be a great little LED. Powerful and easy to use.

Curt[/QUOTE]

So what light did you put these in??


----------



## BentHeadTX

Crossing my fingers for a 2AAA penlight Peak Eiger with the multiple output tail switch? Think of the flood of light that would put out.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

Curt R said:


> After solder blobbing the pads I discovered that all I had to do was to place the LED somewhere close to the proper location and apply the iron tip to the heat transfer pad. The solder melted, the LED aligned itself and settled down in the correct location.



That's the beauty of these smd-style LEDs! they're way easier to solder than people think. But it does depend on how well the solder pads were laid out.

If you use flux too, you don't have to worry about too much solder, as you can push the LED down some and the solder balls up next to the LED. flick that ball away and the LED will stay there, leave the ball there and the LED will suck the solder back up. But after doing 3 or 4, you get an eye for how much to tin the pads.


----------



## jtr1962

I'll add that the XP-G seems pretty robust as far as dealing with soldering heat. I soldered an XP-G onto a modified PCB originally designed for the Rebel. I had to doctor a few pads to get the layout correct. First time I had to reheat the XP-G twice to get it into position. Unfortunately, one of the traces was pulled off the board after I connected a wire. I had to desolder the XP-G, and resolder it to another board. Again, I had to reheat it a few times to position it correctly. Honestly, after all this abuse I was fully expecting the XP-G to either not work at all, or if it did to have been damaged in some way. Turns out it tested well within the R5 bin as it was supposed to! After the abuse I put this XP-G through, I would have no worries at all about soldering these to a pcb designed specifically for them.


----------



## xenonk

Curt R said:


> After solder blobbing the pads I discovered that all I had to do was to place the LED somewhere close to the proper location and apply the iron tip to the heat transfer pad. The solder melted, the LED aligned itself and settled down in the correct location.


SMT electrical components and chips do the same thing if light enough. You're seeing one of the benefits of surface tension in action. :twothumbs



bshanahan14rulz said:


> If you use flux too, you don't have to worry about too much solder


I wonder if the emitter package can tombstone.


----------



## Curt R

There is no solder contact surface on the sides on the XP-G chip unlike that of a resistor or cap therefore no tombstone-ing.

Curt


----------



## tebore

I was wondering what the code name of this new die used in the XP-G is called? It can't simply be a larger EZ1000 die, or can it?

The older XR-E and XP-G had either EZ1000 or EZ900 dies. 
I was sitting around thinking Cree at some point had advanced the EZ1000 so well they were able to shrink it in to the EZ900 and still produce the same characteristics as LEDs using the EZ1000. Can we hypothesize that eventually this new die could be shrank to the size of the EZ1000 or hopefully even the EZ900. A die shrink would greatly benefit Cree in terms of less wasted waffers and more LEDs per waffer and better throw for us. 

The other thing I was wondering is; SSC currently uses EZ1000 dies. If Cree were to start selling these dies to other companies like they did the EZ1000 we could start seeing brighter reworked P7s and P4s. I'm imagining High CRI P4s are 100lm/w.


----------



## moviles

tebore said:


> I was wondering what the code name of this new die used in the XP-G is called? It can't simply be a larger EZ1000 die, or can it?
> 
> .



left XR-E with ez1000 chip/// right XP-G with....maybe ez1400?? or maybe ez2000??:thinking:


----------



## IMSabbel

moviles said:


> left XR-E with ez1000 chip/// right XP-G with....maybe ez1400?? or maybe ez2000??:thinking:



Well, ez2000 would just be wrong. its a 1400um die.


And WOW. Before that picture i did not really realize how tiny those XPGs are. Add to this the cheapness, nothing will stop them 

If only the parcel from cutter were already here..


----------



## TorchBoy

Is there _nowhere_ else that sells them?


----------



## kan3

TorchBoy said:


> Is there _nowhere_ else that sells them?



I would like to know this as well. It takes about 2-3 weeks to get anything I order from Cutters. Where as when I order stuff from in state I usually get it in 3 days.


----------



## txg

If you're from europe, there's a german seller here:

http://www.leds.de/p804/High-Power_LEDs/Cree_LEDs/Cree_XP-G_R4_weiss_325_Lumen.html

but it's only R4 at the moment...


----------



## xenonk

moviles said:


> left XR-E with ez1000 chip/// right XP-G with....maybe ez1400?? or maybe ez2000??:thinking:


Given their naming scheme I'd expect ez1400 as reference to approximate side length. ez700 = 0.7mm*0.7mm, ez900 = 0.9mm*0.9mm


----------



## kan3

txg said:


> If you're from europe, there's a german seller here:
> 
> http://www.leds.de/p804/High-Power_LEDs/Cree_LEDs/Cree_XP-G_R4_weiss_325_Lumen.html
> 
> but it's only R4 at the moment...




Ouch, 25% more expensive than Cutters for the emitter and 100% more expensive for mcpcb. Guess I'll wait the extra few days. =]


----------



## TorchBoy

txg said:


> If you're from europe, there's a german seller here:
> 
> http://www.leds.de/p804/High-Power_LEDs/Cree_LEDs/Cree_XP-G_R4_weiss_325_Lumen.html


That's curious...


> Recommended Resistors
> ...
> 230V 680 Ohm min. 79.45W


If unrectified 230 V AC was fed to an LED through a 680 ohm resistor then (if it didn't break down and conduct) there'd be a roughly 400 V reverse bias on it 50 times a second. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


----------



## txg

although there isn't anything said about the 230v being alternating current, you're totally right about this absolutely stupid idea.

interestingly, on the german page about the led, resistor suggestions stop at 24v.


----------



## Hrvoje

TorchBoy said:


> Is there _nowhere_ else that sells them?



Look here:

http://www.kaidomain.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductId=10060

Hrvoje


----------



## moviles

Hrvoje said:


> Look here:
> 
> http://www.kaidomain.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductId=10060
> 
> Hrvoje


nice

and flashlights:
http://www.kaidomain.com/ProductDeta...roductId=10066
http://www.kaidomain.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductId=10068


----------



## Fallingwater

It's been a while since I haven't done any flashlight modding, and it seems technology has progressed enough that the time has come to fire up the soldering iron again. I have a few questions, the answers to which should bring me up-to-date with the current situation:

1) is the XP-G a lambertian LED? Based on its design, and on the fact that people using them on reflectors meant specifically for the XR-E package are getting awful beams, I think it is, but I'd like to be sure.
2) In case it is, can it be a direct replacement for a SSC P4?
2) I see from that picture that the XP-G has a four... um, strip chip, while the XR-E has three. Are there any plans by Cree to sell XR-Es with the new die? Or are they maybe planning to phase out the XR-E entirely? The XP-G certainly seems easier to assemble, and if it's lambertian it's probably also easier to build reflectors for.
3) Is the R5 the highest-rated bin that is generally available right now? What's the actual difference between R2 and R5
4) what's the highest bin the SSC P4 can be had in, and what Cree bin is it equivalent to?

Thanks


----------



## twentysixtwo

Just another reason CREE stock has been doing nicely.....Wish I had a few more shares...


----------



## Marduke

On your one question, look at my graph above for XP-E and XR-E R2 vs XP-G R5


----------



## IMSabbel

Whoa. My 7 XP-G R5 board arived today.
Sadly, my driver is not here yet, and my Lab PSU only goes to 20V...

Runs at 200mA at 20.0V, and still, damn its bright. and those leds are tiny. There would be no problem to but 30 of them on this 38mm PCB.


----------



## Calina

Hrvoje said:


> Look here:
> 
> http://www.kaidomain.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductId=10060
> 
> Hrvoje


 
Wow! These are twice as expensive as Cutter's.


----------



## TorchBoy

But at least KD doesn't add an unannounced "handling fee" when you get to the last step of the checkout in addition to the shipping. That's pretty dodgy, Cutter.


----------



## nickdolin

Looks like I'll be pre-ordering one of the Quark 123-2's! The R5 looks pretty impressive. 

So it's perhaps 20-30% brighter than say an R2 and 15-20% more effecient?

Also, with the wider beam, do you all feel it'll be more of a thrower than a flooder?


----------



## kan3

TorchBoy said:


> But at least KD doesn't add an unannounced "handling fee" when you get to the last step of the checkout in addition to the shipping. That's pretty dodgy, Cutter.



I don't recall ever seeing a handling fee when I've ordered from them.

It's always price of led + tax + $12 airmail.


----------



## kan3

Calina said:


> Wow! These are twice as expensive as Cutter's.



Actually, after you take in account $12 for shipping. You have to order 4 xp-g on stars before cutter becomes cheaper.


----------



## saabluster

kan3 said:


> I don't recall ever seeing a handling fee when I've ordered from them.
> 
> It's always price of led + tax + $12 airmail.


This is copied directly off of my last invoice. "*Shipping and Handling *15.38" Shipping was 12 something out of that.


----------



## saabluster

WeLight said:


> Guys, this is not my fee, it is paypal fee, if you use CC through the site there is no fee
> Cheers
> Mark


Well it would be nice if you called it what it was. If I knew you were charging a fee for that I'd do it directly with my card.:sigh:


----------



## Tobias Bossert

Calina said:


> Wow! These are twice as expensive as Cutter's.



No, for small quantities it isn't twice because of shipping fee.

But even if it would be:

Cutter doesn't specifie the color BIN, it is 00H51, which means the whole range of all 28 collor BIN within cool white (area 0S-0R-3R-3S), all from yellow greenish to magenta... and all equivalent temperatures from 5000K to 8000K too!
Kaidomain sells color BIN WC, which is "colorfree" cool white (near to BBL) at 6350K to 7000K - much narrower!
I prefer to avoid color lottery.


----------



## mudman cj

Tobias Bossert said:


> No, for small quantities it isn't twice because of shipping fee.
> 
> But even if it would be:
> 
> Cutter doesn't specifie the color BIN, it is 00H51, which means the whole range of all 28 collor BIN within cool white (area 0S-0R-3R-3S), all from yellow greenish to magenta... and all equivalent temperatures from 5000K to 8000K too!
> Kaidomain sells color BIN WC, which is "colorfree" cool white (near to BBL) at 6350K to 7000K - much narrower!
> I prefer to avoid color lottery.



If you think you can trust the "WC" designation. Check out the 'Hightlight' section below. The first 'hightlight' is:NO.:XPGWHT-LE-0000-00H51

Looks like the same range of tints to me. WC is there IMHO because they think it will make people want to buy it.


----------



## jmodic

mudman cj said:


> Check out the 'Hightlight' section below. The first 'hightlight' is:NO.:XPGWHT-LE-0000-00H51


And do not even try to understand what they were trying to say in the highlight #2!


----------



## jirik_cz

mudman cj said:


> WC is there IMHO because they think it will make people want to buy it.



Exactly. And I don't trust them that they really have R5...


----------



## 4sevens

jirik_cz said:


> Exactly. And I don't trust them that they really have R5...


Just to clarify, the XP-G's are on a new ANSI standard tint binning system.

The fact that they are claiming WC indicates bogusness.

There are not such things as XP-G R5 WC.

Cree doesn't make them! It's unbelievable what people will do to win a buck.
I always believe that one's actions whether *honorable or dishonorable *eventually everything catches up to you.


----------



## Curt R

4sevens is correct in the color bin statement. Right now we are forced to accept whatever is in the pipeline as to color tints and forward voltage. Cree has never been one outfit to be kind to white wall hunters. They ship kits which may contain anything that they may have laying around in stock. Ideally we would like to get tint bins 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D. 1C and 1D would also be acceptable. There are 40 tint bins in the new system, (ANSI C78.377A), covers 16 of them. Cross reference would be close to Crees WD and WC, Seouls SWO and SXO, and Luxeon WO and XO. When Cree has more product available we may then be able to get what we want, until then we have to be satisfied with a high performance, high output device and the tint lottery. 

Curt


----------



## IMSabbel

At least they are better than OSRAM.
With them, i never even bothered to buy a sample (because "550-1000 lumen, 4000-9000K" seems a _little_ vague as a product description...)

But i am pretty sure that as Cree is ramping the production up the selection will broaden.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

anybody received a KD xpg? I'm not buying from cutter  but perhaps if I ever have to buy more than single quantities, and have money :nana:

I would definitely rather be able to choose my bin and tint instead of buying an XP-G w/o knowing anything about it. meh, beggars can't be choosers. well, thrifty shoppers can't be choosers either.


----------



## WeLight

saabluster said:


> Well it would be nice if you called it what it was. If I knew you were charging a fee for that I'd do it directly with my card.:sigh:



Fair Comment, I will change the description


----------



## Ekke

Slightly filed XP-G, still smiling:


----------



## saabluster

Ekke said:


> Slightly filed XP-G, still smiling:


Wow! Talk about extracting lumens. Why? Reverse engineering?


----------



## Ekke

saabluster said:


> Wow! Talk about extracting lumens. Why? Reverse engineering?



I just wanted to see what there is under the die. Popped the dome when tried to fit lens and later broke the bond wires so it was dead already.


----------



## saabluster

Ekke said:


> I just wanted to see what there is under the die. Popped the dome when tried to fit lens and later broke the bond wires so it was dead already.


Well thanks for posting the pics. Always love to see dissected LEDs.  Were you able to pop the die off intact by any chance?


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

WeLight said:


> I have yet to add bin choices because we effectively have been sent a limited narrow choice as they yield and we get more stock we will. I think it is a little unfair as with all other Cree leds we are the one of the few who offer complete details of bins and a wide range, cant please everyone however



Don't get me wrong, you guys always have the best selection and variety of the top and best of the best. Just I have to make a compromise between the assurance of quality I'd get with Cutter vs. the price (which is only lower in small quantities of less than 3, from what I've been told, otherwise cutter is still the best choice). But the lower price comeswith the doubt of not knowing if the specs in the description are real or not, which is not even a problem with Cutter's site.

When those warmer tint xp-g come in I'll start saving up for a few :twothumbs

Edit: and yeah, did you get the die off in one piece? is it still mounted on top of the SiC diode or is it to the side like the xp-e? I'm always fascinated by this stuff. I wish I still had my old xp-e die, but it snapped in half and stopped working


----------



## Ekke

saabluster said:


> Well thanks for posting the pics. Always love to see dissected LEDs.  Were you able to pop the die off intact by any chance?



Didn't even try, used only a file. Sadly I didn't take so many pictures, but there seems to be some really hard material below the die. That "pcb" is also pretty hard and brittle. I think I have to grind that a little bit to see how die is connected to the center tap. There isn't electrical connection so there has to be insulator in somewhere. As you can see in the pic, center of copper is connected to + pole, but center tap in the bottom of the led isn't.


----------



## lolzertank

Ekke said:


> Sadly I didn't take so many pictures, but there seems to be some really hard material below the die. That "pcb" is also pretty hard and brittle.



Probably the SiC (silicon carbide) ESD diode.


----------



## Ekke

lolzertank said:


> Probably the SiC (silicon carbide) ESD diode.



Probably. It was quite black / dark grey. According to Wiki: "Pure SiC is colorless. The brown to black color of industrial product results from iron impurities."


----------



## Illumination

4sevens said:


> I'm don't blame you calling it hype since I really haven't given you any information,
> but when the news hits the stands I guarantee you'll be picking up your jaw from off the ground.



this must be bigger than flashlights...


----------



## Blindasabat

*The new XP-G TRIPLE*

Die Endor DIE!!!!!

http://www.led-tech.de/en/High-Powe...-G-R4-on-Triple-Star-PCB-LT-1588_120_138.html

Holy cow! 1000 Lumens on a 20mm star... at higher efficiency than MC-E and P7.

Tim, you seen this?


----------



## Blindasabat

So will I!! 


bshanahan14rulz said:


> When those warmer tint xp-g come in I'll start saving up for a few


----------



## TorchBoy

*Re: The new XP-G triple*



Blindasabat said:


> http://www.led-tech.de/en/High-Powe...-G-R4-on-Triple-Star-PCB-LT-1588_120_138.html
> 
> Holy cow! 1000 Lumens on a 20mm star... at higher efficiency than MC-E and P7.
> 
> Tim, you seen this?


What I've seen is they're claiming 347.5 lumens from each XP-G R*4*. :shakehead

And while I've given up on buying anything from Cutter for the moment, they already have three XP-G boards with individually addressable R_5_ LEDs that can actually be _used_ with optics (fancy that!).


----------



## Linger

bshanahan14rulz said:


> When those warmer tint xp-g come in I'll start saving up for a few


 
Good choice. Have a look at this shot I took this evening:





(two sides of the same tree, no 'natural' colour varation)
xp-g r5 I put into a smooth D26 module with a KD driver
vs
Q AA T N


----------



## NIMA1966

CREE XP-G is 1.45x1.45 mm =2.1mm2
from ekke"s photo
http://ekke.kapsi.fi/temp/.xpg2.jpg


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

Indeed, his photo does indicate that the figure floating around (1.4mmx1.4mm) is correct.


----------



## droeun

Sorry I'm not following all this jarble - will this throw better than an XRE R2?


----------



## saabluster

droeun said:


> Sorry I'm not following all this jarble - will this throw better than an XRE R2?


No.


----------



## CampingLED

droeun said:


> Sorry I'm not following all this jarble - will this throw better than an XRE R2?


 
Not yet, but give the reflector and optic designers a chance and we may be lucky.


----------



## saabluster

CampingLED said:


> Not yet, but give the reflector and optic designers a chance and we may be lucky.


Please don't confuse him. The answer is no and will always be no. This has been talked about at length in other threads and I see no need to rehash it all here again. If you want I will try and find the last thread and link to it.


----------



## Ekke

Here's XP-E & XP-G side by side:


----------



## hmm

Ekke said:


> Here's XP-E & XP-G side by side:



beautiful.

Does the 3 vs 4 rows mean something? Brighter, but would it be more efficient?


----------



## Marduke

hmm said:


> beautiful.
> 
> Does the 3 vs 4 rows mean something? Brighter, but would it be more efficient?




Yes, see my efficacy plots upthread.


----------



## TorchBoy

hmm said:


> beautiful.


But a little unnecessary to include the pic in your quote, eh. 



hmm said:


> Does the 3 vs 4 rows mean something? Brighter, but would it be more efficient?


It's really 5 gold lines vs 4, in order to help distribute current evenly across the die surface. Yes, the new die is more efficient, and apparently not just due to the size.


----------



## NIMA1966

Check these links about difference of construction of the best LEDs 
available today.
Witch do you think is the most advanced.
REBEL:
http://www.systemplus.fr/plaquettes...el-LED-Lamp-Teardown-Report-short-version.pdf
AND XR-C:
http://www.systemplus.fr/plaquettes/MuAnalysis/Cree-XLAMP-LED-Lamp-Teardown-Report-short-version.pdf
(of course XR-C and XP-G have the same chip construction)


----------



## jirik_cz

NIMA1966 said:


> (of course XR-C and XP-G have the same chip construction)



They don't.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

Cree package is way better. Cree doesn't use several balls of solder to connect the die. Rather, the connection is over the whole area.

Plus, Cree specializes in SiC power devices as well. They mounted the LED on top of the diode in the XR package to help with heat management, since SiC has better heat properties than most metals. 

On the XP LEDs, it looks liek they've switched to a reduced-size diode hidden from view by the lens.


----------



## lolzertank

bshanahan14rulz said:


> Cree package is way better. Cree doesn't use several balls of solder to connect the die. Rather, the connection is over the whole area.



Yet, the K2 TFFC has a lower thermal resistance than the XR-E. :thinking:


----------



## tebore

lolzertank said:


> Yet, the K2 TFFC has a lower thermal resistance than the XR-E. :thinking:


This comes from XR-E using a ceramic package. The thermal resistance for the whole LED is lower but it's possible the XR-E has a lower TR at the junction where the die connects. I'd have to dig up the spec sheets again to be sure.


----------



## LightForce

Hi Ekke, great comparison shot. Could you immerse both LED's in the shallow water and take the picture again? It would eliminate the emitter domes distortion and allow precisely see both dies size.

I would be great if you add a XR-E to them in another shot.


----------



## Ekke

LightForce said:


> Hi Ekke, great comparison shot. Could you immerse both LED's in the shallow water and take the picture again? It would eliminate the emitter domes distortion and allow precisely see both dies size.
> 
> I would be great if you add a XR-E to them in another shot.



Sure. Those are in use, but I will try. I think I have that free XP-G still somewhere. How good those will handle water?


----------



## LightForce

Don't worry, I'm sure they don't mind it when sinked for a minute and then you let them dry for a few hours in a warm and dry place.


----------



## Fallingwater

I advanced the idea that the XP-G is a lambertian LED some time ago, but I haven't found confirmation. Is it official, or am I officially wrong?


----------



## uk_caver

Fallingwater said:


> I advanced the idea that the XP-G is a lambertian LED some time ago, but I haven't found confirmation. Is it official, or am I officially wrong?


Overlaid comparison curves from the pdfs


----------



## milkyspit

uk_caver said:


> Overlaid comparison curves from the pdfs




Hmm... looks pretty Lambertian to me. :thinking:


----------



## uk_caver

(just added another curve to the graph)


----------



## Fallingwater

This is exactly as I expected. It warms my heart to know that we'll hopefully soon be rid of the XR-E package, as the metal ring and non-lambertian pattern have always been a big pain for beam quality and smoothness. About the only thing I like the XR-E for is unreflectored bare-emitter applications, in which it makes a more usable beam than lambertian emitters.

I'll get a few new-die XP-Gs as soon as I can. 

Edit: umm... so, where do I get new-die XP-Gs from (international/european shipping required)? :thinking: Are they even available yet?


----------



## tebore

Fallingwater said:


> This is exactly as I expected. It warms my heart to know that we'll hopefully soon be rid of the XR-E package, as the metal ring and non-lambertian pattern have always been a big pain for beam quality and smoothness. About the only thing I like the XR-E for is unreflectored bare-emitter applications, in which it makes a more usable beam than lambertian emitters.
> 
> I'll get a few new-die XP-Gs as soon as I can.
> 
> Edit: umm... so, where do I get new-die XP-Gs from (international/european shipping required)? :thinking: Are they even available yet?



Who said anything about the XR-E going away. For all we know Cree has so many XR-E orders that they don't feel the need to revamp the line for the XP-G. The XR-E still has it's benefits the non-Lambertian beam may not be useful for you but for applications of flood where you still want a lot of light forward it's great. 

The XR-E can produce a good beam it's up to the designer and just because we like to use lambertian reflectors for it and don't get the desired beam it isn't the XR-Es fault.


----------



## Fallingwater

tebore said:


> Who said anything about the XR-E going away. For all we know Cree has so many XR-E orders that they don't feel the need to revamp the line for the XP-G.


I'm hoping that's how it'll go in the long run, I know we won't be rid of it tomorrow.



> The XR-E still has it's benefits the non-Lambertian beam may not be useful for you but for applications of flood where you still want a lot of light forward it's great.


But that's exactly what I said


----------



## uk_caver

It's not hard to simulate an XR-E's naked beam pattern if that's what someone wants to do.

With a small conical collar dropped over a Seoul P4 (or other lambertian LED), something more XR-E-like can be made.
The blue curve ('collared P4') added to the graph is for a P4 with a reasonable-sized conical collar, front diameter about 13mm, roughly 90 degree full-angle, - the upper LED in:




The curve on the graph is only approximate - using a cheap luxmeter with a cardboard tube lens hood taped to the front and rotating the light by hand over a printed protractor scale, but taking readings each 10 degrees going up and down the angles seemed to give reasonably repeatable results.

With a shallower reflector, less side-light would be captured and redirected forwards, so the curve would be less centre-weighted, and a decent approximation to a naked XR-E should be obtainable for anyone who wanted that.

With one of the smaller-package recent Crees, the necesary reflector would be tiny. I have made one for an XP-E, pretty much to LED-scale with the one in the above picture, but forming and taping the reflective plastic using tweezers was desperately fiddly, and would have been rather easier if forming over a conical mould.

If there actually was a market, such reflectors should be easy for a commercial company to churn out for peanuts.


----------



## longleg

Fallingwater said:


> I'll get a few new-die XP-Gs as soon as I can.
> 
> Edit: umm... so, where do I get new-die XP-Gs from (international/european shipping required)? :thinking: Are they even available yet?



What are these? S2 bin? Or some other update?


----------



## Ekke

LightForce said:


> Hi Ekke, great comparison shot. Could you immerse both LED's in the shallow water and take the picture again? It would eliminate the emitter domes distortion and allow precisely see both dies size.
> 
> I would be great if you add a XR-E to them in another shot.



Here you go... Two pics added together, but should be same magnification.






Bigger version here [~4Mb]. There are "some" air bubbles, the water stood a day in a cup, but clearly it wasn't enough. Oh well, I think those will do the job.


----------



## jirik_cz

Excellent picture :thumbsup:


----------



## TorchBoy

Yes, excellent pic. The water makes quite a difference.



longleg said:


> What are these? S2 bin? Or some other update?


I took "new-die XP-Gs" as meaning "the XP-Gs with a new die compared to XP-Es" but I did wonder.


----------



## Fallingwater

longleg said:


> What are these? S2 bin? Or some other update?


No, sorry - I meant the four-strip XP-G die. I mistakenly thought the XP-G came in two dies, the old-style one we're used from the XR-E and the new-style four-strip one. I now realize the XP-G universally comes with the "new-style" die.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

They're beautiful!


----------

