# Reflector advancements are dead



## orbital (Sep 27, 2007)

+

There seems to be a couple of facts with lights:

1. The light engines will get much more powerful
2. Battery technology will improve

So this leaves the reflector...
The amount that can be changed on reflectors is finite and there are only a few companies trying unique reflector designs.

Have we come to a point where all we'll be getting out of our lights is incremental LUX increase? 
Or will topics shift to runtime and efficiency?


----------



## scottaw (Sep 27, 2007)

I'm waiting for a reflector that you could stretch or something to change the amout of stippling....a real flood to spot change without changing the beam profile. Trust me im working on it....in my head.


----------



## Kevin Tan (Sep 27, 2007)

The most important element of a reflector is the reflective coating. This coating tech is very costly and is out of most hobbiests hands. And hobbiest is the 1 who pushes the envelope and advances the tech further. As for the geometirc designs, most have been done, in fact what scottaw wants can be done with a bottom OP with gradual smooth surface. BUT the cost of the thing is not insignificant. And nobody wants to stock all the variations of the same reflector with only the diff being percentage of stippling.


----------



## woodrow (Sep 28, 2007)

I think that the reflector is most likely the hardest part of the light to get just "right" I am sure it requires incredible math and cad skills and simulations...trial and error ect. I remember seeing the first SF reflector 18 years ago and being amazed.

I think that the reflector does make a big difference. The SL SurvivorLED and Heliotek are good examples of this. They seem to illuminate much more than their wattage would indicate they could. Also, as led's change, reflectors must as well. It takes a different reflector to make a Rebel's beam look good than it does that of a Cree.

Just my humble opinions.


----------



## lctorana (Sep 28, 2007)

_"SF reflector"_

What's that???

Science Fiction?

Semi Freddo?

Sam Fisher?


----------



## Kevin Tan (Sep 28, 2007)

Ictorana, a little respect goes a long way. SF in the world of flashaholics is SureFire.


----------



## mossyoak (Sep 28, 2007)

Kevin Tan said:


> Ictorana, a little respect goes a long way. SF in the world of flashaholics is SureFire.



And where is he being disrespectful? A little humor goes a long way to.


----------



## lctorana (Sep 28, 2007)

How is that question disrespectful?

Ignorant, maybe.

People are touchy here. Sigh.


----------



## Size15's (Sep 28, 2007)

okay, okay lets move on.


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Sep 28, 2007)

Back on topic....
I agree that reflector improvements will have the least impact on how much light we get in comparison to power and emitters. We still have plenty of efficiency to go with LEDs, and who knows how much power density we'll achieve once we start moving to super-capacitors. Decent reflectors right now are ~60-70% efficient, and really good ones I beleive can get up to high 80s. Maybe more... someone with more knowledge will prob chime in.

However reflectors are still a very significant part of the light and must not be ignored. I too am waiting for an electro forming fluid reflector that can change shape or texture to adjust the beam with little to no artifacts, Mag holes, wasted light, etc . Now I think that we will see something like this in optics before reflectors. The concept of Fluid lenses has been around for awhile. (Oil lenses in Dune for example) But nonetheless there are some pretty cool things that can still happen IMO.


----------



## MikeSalt (Sep 28, 2007)

Reflector advancements cannot be dead because they are nowhere near perfect. Typically, torch lumens are 0.65 x bulb lumens. Therefore, 35% of your lumens are wasted. Characteristics of the glass/lexan window can only account for 15% at the most I should imagine, with the reflector causing the other 20% of the losses.

By my reckoning, that makes the reflector approximately 75% efficient. Reflector designers cannot rest until that is as close to 100% as they can make it. At 100% efficiency, the only losses are due to the window, so we would see 85% efficiency overall.


----------



## lyyyghtmaster (Sep 28, 2007)

I've heard, and roughly verified by testing, that UCL windows with AR coating have only about a few percent insertion loss. Can anyone else chime in on this? Sure the AR is easily damaged, but for non-extreme duty apps, works very well, I think. That pretty much leaves just the reflector to improve for such lights.


----------



## MikeSalt (Sep 28, 2007)

I would agree with you there, a few percent would be typical. I was quoting worse case scenario. Given the value you quote, that means that reflectors of today are still significantly less than 70% efficient.


----------



## yellow (Sep 28, 2007)

pffff, ....
still a LONG way to go.

Take any Cree light or insert and compare it with an identical Cree running on exact the same current,
but using a Sandwich Shoppe MxR-XR reflector (19 mm being the best)
what a difference!
if only they did cost what IMS and such cost ...

Dunno on Seouls, there the IMS seem to be not dis of a difference


----------



## Gunner12 (Sep 28, 2007)

Well, RA has made a light with only 3% loss of light. Reflector is 98% reflective and the window transmits 99.3% of the light. Thread here.

Of course, there is the price.


----------



## Ra (Sep 28, 2007)

Gunner12 said:


> Well, RA has made a light with only 3% loss of light. Reflector is 98% reflective and the window transmits 99.3% of the light. Thread here.
> 
> Of course, there is the price.




Hi Gunner12,

I must slightly correct you on something:

If you talk about 3% loss of light, it would mean 97% bulblumens are converted into torchlumens.. That is not the case:

The conventional shape of most reflectors causes a loss of bulblumens, which is much more than 3%.. more like 25-35%

The high reflectivity of the reflector in my mini-HID shurely contributes in a better bulblumens-torchlumens ratio, but the most important is the the fact that the high reflectivity preserves the surface brightness of the source. Better throw is the result of that.


As for most efficient reflectors: Few months ago, I made a glass-TIR reflector (Total Internal Reflection) for use with the Seoul SSC P4 emitter..

The theroretics behind it:






Shot at 2007-09-28



A 30mm diameter version I finished earlier:






TIR means 100% reflection inside the reflector (optical fact, law of light). That, with a collimating lens at the center, and high performance coatings, creates a whopping 95% total efficiency. And this indeed does mean converting 95% bulb-(or emitter-) lumens into torchlumens!



I already build a light with a glass-TIR 15.5mm diameter reflector:







When I have the time, I will post a thread on this light in the Custom/modified section of these forums..



Regards,

Ra.


----------



## Daekar (Sep 28, 2007)

Well then, it sounds like high-performance optics are the way to go, not reflectors, as emitters advance. I wonder why people haven't jumped onto this bandwagon yet... are TIR lenses expensive to manufacture? The difference we're talking about is extreme... sounds like at least a 20% difference in torch lumens to me. I wonder if that's one reason why the L1 is so impressive...?


----------



## Ra (Sep 28, 2007)

Daekar said:


> Well then, it sounds like high-performance optics are the way to go, not reflectors, as emitters advance. I wonder why people haven't jumped onto this bandwagon yet... are TIR lenses expensive to manufacture? The difference we're talking about is extreme... sounds like at least a 20% difference in torch lumens to me. I wonder if that's one reason why the L1 is so impressive...?



The TIR-optics used in flashlights by some brands, are acryllic based: More fragile, can easily be damaged, huge thermal expansion. But they are easy to make. (at $3-$6 each)
They have about 90% efficiency, which indeed is much better than conventional reflectors

Glass-based TIR-reflectors are much, much, much harder to make ! I don't know anyone or any brand that makes them.. Do you ??


Edit: Oh.. I forgot: The main reason people are not jumping onto this is the lack of many sizes: The acryllic optics are aviable in only a few small sizes.. Soon, I'll try to make one with a more reasonable 50mm diameter.. Another problem is: Being from massive material, larger diameters TIR's will be heavy!


Regards,

Ra.


----------



## gromit (Sep 28, 2007)

I'll start out that I'm no expert in optics, but I also have a few nice telescope and know a little about them.

I'm not sure you could get 95% transmission through a mass of glass or acrylic. $7,000 AstroPhysics telescopes are 97% and use very special glass custom ground lenses manufactured to specific light wavelengths. very special coatings to achieve that number. that number is a straight pass through the lenses, not reflected. 

I could be wrong I'm not a optical engineer.


----------



## Size15's (Sep 28, 2007)

Ra said:


> The TIR-optics used in flashlights by some brands, are acryllic based: More fragile, can easily be damaged, huge thermal expansion. But they are easy to make. (at $3-$6 each)
> They have about 90% efficiency, which indeed is much better than conventional reflectors
> Glass-based TIR-reflectors are much, much, much harder to make ! I don't know anyone or any brand that makes them.. Do you ??


I understand that the TIR optics designed by SAIC and SureFire are Cyclo-Olefin Copolymer (example Zeonex) which is a non-acrylic based thermo plastic.

Al


----------



## tvodrd (Sep 28, 2007)

Thanks for that tidbit, Al. 5-years ago, the only manufacturer of COC-_Cyclic_ Olefin Copolymer was Ticona with their Topas family, and it was a new polymer on the scene. I got to design a medical product to utilize some of its properties other than optical. It is far more tolerant of heat than acrylics and polycarbonates, and even transmits UV to a decent extent. Oh yeah, it's incredibly _clear!_

Larry


----------



## Illum (Sep 28, 2007)

I wouldn't necessarily say dead...but I suppose theres not much significant advancements that may come out of it in comparison with cell runtime, led performance etc. 

Take PEU's concept: *The making of a reflector - The nCluster* if the optic is one solid part, its plausible to create a one piece optic with varying degrees to balance the throw or flood of the light needing improvement

better yet...assuming you have nothing else to do....one can create a polygon reflector with parabolic sides to compliment multiple LEDs.
Extend the *Tri-Lobe reflector concept for CREE LEDs *concept to take maybe 5 LEDs by making the center post a pentagon?? 


McGizmo said:


> What came to me as an unexpected surprise was the beam I got from the 3 shooter with the XR-E's. I assumed with a relative long focal length that there would be much less divergence in beam angle than the reality of the case turned out to be. I anticipated a tighter and more concentrated beam. It is clear to me now that a longer focal length resulting in an even larger diameter optic would do a better job of collimating the light and the results might be quite impressive where lux is the goal. With this first sample I did, a lux measurement of 10,000 is nothing to be embarassed about but more impressive is the size of the beam that has this intensity! And of note, unlike with a lens solution, the side shooter does have viable spill light in addition to that which is redirected by the reflector.



I'm not an engineer so I really don't know if its possible...but a single reflector that can focus the light from multiple sources should be more economical than that of individual reflectors right?

EDIT: aside from tri-reflector, theres previous info on split reflector and quad-reflector info


----------



## lctorana (Sep 28, 2007)

Ra said:


> Few months ago, I made a glass-TIR reflector (Total Internal Reflection)...


 
Hi Ra,

Just trying to understand this.

Take a look at this very cheap torch:
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.3329

I know it's cheap, but is the optics in this likely to be a TIR?


----------



## yellow (Sep 29, 2007)

TIR means (if I understand this correct), that the light that goes into, gets redirected to the main axis and NOT leaves as spill, while everything not reflected by the back side surface is spill in "normal" ones.
(as shown in the drawings)
But thus, only 1/3 of the light - spill at normal focusing devices, gets another use, while still a large part of the reflected light leaves behind the optic
*so no way even these can be more efficient as reflectors.*

see here: as long as everything around the optic is illuminated, these CANT be more efficient than reflectors:






for now I stay with my opinion:
1st: led with reflector gives better results
2nd: nore spill AND better hotspot
(tiros only _seems_ brighter hotspot because there is no spill at all. 
Just get a similar reflectored light side by side - the latter wins)

PS: a light without spill is nothing I like


----------



## DM51 (Sep 29, 2007)

Some lights with multi-LED arrays use optics which they source from companies like Polymer Optics Ltd.


----------



## Size15's (Sep 29, 2007)

Yellow,
I'd be interested to see what doing the same thing with one of SureFire's TIR optics looks like (rather than the Inova's TIROS which is behind SAIC/SureFire technology)

Also, I understand from SureFire's integrating sphere tests the TIR does output more of the light into the beam compared to a reflector. I guess this is something very difficult to corroborate.

I agree that it was an vital step for TIR optic beams to feature some surround beam. SureFire's current Cree XR-E & TIR combinations are the first real steps within this realm in my opinion.


----------



## Ra (Sep 29, 2007)

I'm not going to take hours to explain things..

Look at the drawing in post #16: The optic grabbes 170 degrees of light angle from the emitter.

Optical law: Within sertain angles, glass (and transparent acryllic) have total internal reflections: THIS MEANS 100% reflection (if the surface is clean and undamaged..)

The only loss of light is the reflection at the front of the optic and on the surface of the internal refraction-chamber.. At the front, I coated the optic with a high performance multilayer: 0.5% reflection average (in visible.) With about 4% reflection in the internal refraction-chamber makes 95.5 % overall transmission.

BK7 glass has very high transmission of its own: 99.9% for 1 cm thickness.

The reason why a $7000 astrophisics telescope has "only" 97% transmission is that the glass-types needed for high image-quality have somewhat higher internal absorption-rates.

The TIR-optic only is for collimating light: No exotic glass-types needed! So high transmission BK7 glass will do fine.

A word about sidespill: If constructed the way it should, the TIR-optic offers the best sidespill/throw combination possible: No conventional reflector grabbes a 170 angle of light !! Proove me wrong!

And on top of that, no conventional reflector, exept the dichroic multilayer based ones, will reach over 92% reflection. TIR has 99.5% overall reflection at the reflective section and 99.2 % at the lens-section.

The at least 20% more emitter-lumens you grab with TIR will become visible as better sidespill ! 

And, with TIR, you don't annoy people with the sideways emitted light using conventional reflectors because even that is collected by the lens and put into the main beam where it belongs!

The only con of TIR: Not focussable !



Regards,


Ra.


----------



## beyonder (Sep 29, 2007)

after god created the mag lite reflerctors ceased to be an issue

on the sixth day he created the perfect reflector the maglite

the throw was magnificent

the deviant ones and satan wall hunters conspired to create the ultimate

flashlight from hell the obfuscating beam dispersion orange peel reflector

and thus sold it to kyle at dx and now all satan following deviant flasholics who do not use a flashlight in every day use now command a portion of hell
known as "orange peel gay garage lighter uppers"


----------



## beyonder (Sep 29, 2007)

however its not a bad thing

uptight can be all right

dont respond

you have your cliques

i dont


----------



## beyonder (Sep 29, 2007)

oh kyle we have "ringy beams" please give us orange peel reflectors i can hardly see my whole garage INSIDE at night

and i do so love twisty non aggressive non tacticle flash (ies)


----------



## beyonder (Sep 29, 2007)

havent "they" contacted you yet?

orange peel reflectors are just another way to defeat the "human race"

clique or click?


----------



## beyonder (Sep 29, 2007)

hello


----------



## yellow (Sep 29, 2007)

Kay, I believe You all ...

take a pic with a setup like mine and show that everything behind and sideways from the optic is not illuminated
(which would mean no light escapes to the sides)


----------



## Ra (Sep 29, 2007)

yellow said:


> Kay, I believe You all ...
> 
> take a pic with a setup like mine and show that everything behind and sideways from the optic is not illuminated
> (which would mean no light escapes to the sides)



You cannot prevent light from escaping from the side.. The amount will be very little though..


Regards,

Ra.


----------



## yellow (Sep 29, 2007)

exactly, "can not prevent":
5 % loss at entering the media (=optic)
5 % loss at sides/back
5 % loss at leaving the media
= same as a reflector, 
but no spill in beam - if someone wants that


----------



## h_nu (Sep 29, 2007)

Maybe a full reflective side, a partial reflective side, and a cavity in between. Let's pump the medium in between to a higher energy state...


----------



## Ra (Sep 29, 2007)

The only thing I can say is..

Yellow, READ MY POSTS !!!!

Manufacturers like fraen and others that make acryllic based TIR-optics reach efficiencies of little over 90% overall (tested !!). And these are uncoated !

And they are right: Size15's already made the remark that integrating sphere tests, which in fact are torch-lumens-tests, reveal a significant difference between conventional reflectors and TIR-optics!

My multilayer coated TIR-optics reach 95% efficiency: Yep: 5% of the light is scattered: At 200 emitter-lumens, that will be 10 lumens: Enough to clearly see light comming from the side of the optic..


I don't know where your 5+5+5% is based on, but it simply doesn't compute!

You think that when you see light comming from the side, the result is lower efficiency?? 

NOT! The reflective surface of a aluminum reflector reflects a mere 88% of the light: 12% loss, and that's only the reflective surface, this light is not scattered! it's absorbed ! The entire geometry of the conventional reflector gives another, at least 15% loss! Take a look at bulblumens/torchlumens ratios posted on these forums: they prove my case!

Get a quality light with a TIR-optic and you'll see what I mean.


Regards,

Ra.


----------



## McGizmo (Sep 29, 2007)

You can stick a LED proud and not behind any optic or protective window and have bulb lumens equal torch lumens. Put a feather in your cap and shout your efficiency to the world! :nana:

However, you may not have your light delivered in a distribution pattern that you desire. I don't care what you do or what design you use in a light, there will be waste more than likely in terms of delivered light and intensity on target of interest. I believe it is well accepted that with good optic material, TIR is more efficient than external reflection off a surface. This is great provided the TIR optic does what you want with the light delivered. 

I don't agree with the comment that reflector advancments are dead as I am not aware of any brick walls in physics that have been run up against?!? Although not specular, the new MCPET material has great promise as an efficient material for reflecting light; just not collimated.

If I could have a mere 30% of the flux produced delivered exactly as I desired in terms of distribution and intensity, I would be a very happy person and most impressed. Of course first I would have to know just where and how I would want that light delivered! :thinking: :shrug:

The world of specs and performance potential is not the same world of real use and applications necessarily. The best possible tool for an illumination task may look like hell on paper.

I would much rather see what I want with waste galore than be blind or blinded yet supported with performance bragging rights.

Instead of reflector advancements how about considering reflector improvements? Surely improvements can't be dead since there are new sources of light still coming out which have yet to be coupled with optics of any type. For task specific illumination I have no doubt that there is room for improved and optimized reflectors or TIR optics/ lenses for that matter.

With the advent of viable arrays of multiple LED sources we haven't even seen the beginning of optic arrays being coupled with these sources!! Consider primary transportation illumination like headlamps. With multiple light sources you can delegate areas and intensities of desired illumination to dedicated individual sources and the group can be much greater than the sum of the individuals. I can imagine external reflective surfaces working hand in hand with TIR surfaces as well as lenses. The LED's can be driven at variable current levels altering the overall fieldof illumination as needed. In such a case it is the overall efficiency of the illumination task itself that matters. If reflectors are elements in such a scheme then I would sugest that reflector advancments are not dead.

RA is the expert here so I defer to his wisdom and knowledge. I am most impressed with the TIR/Lens optic he made and has shared here with us! Fantastic efficiency in regards to transmission. If the transmission is in a form he desires then he has hit one out of the ball park! If not, I am still impressed and happy for him.

I do take exception with:



> And, with TIR, you don't annoy people with the sideways emitted light using conventional reflectors because even that is collected by the lens and put into the main beam where it belongs!


 
But forget about the light for a minute! What if your comment here annoys me?!?!

I had no idea that there was some rule or right or wrong as to where light belongs?!? :nana:

Conventional reflectors are inferior because TIR is superior. OK. If you say so. 

Seriously though, Doesn't the lens have to be specifically oriented and of a proper design to insure that that light which is not hiting the reflector is in fact being redirected by the lens instead? Are there not TIR/Lens optics where some of the light emitted neither bounces off the reflector or gets bent through the lens? In fact, isn't this part of how some divergent light can be provided with such an optic? No matter.......


----------



## Ra (Sep 29, 2007)

OK McGizmo,

Maybe I sounded a little too harsh on conventional reflectors.. I don't see them as inferior. Maybe the fact that I can make TIR-optics the way I need them did carry me away a bit.
I realize that the diversity of shapes and sizes of conventional reflectors make them more easy to use, with decent results. TIR comes only in a few small sizes.

And indeed, the TIR-optics has to be precisely shaped and mounted in order to perform great.

Example: A conventional reflector does a decent job with both Cree and Seoul emitters, a TIR does not: You need a different shaped TIR for Cree than for Seoul-emitters.

And: indeed, I should have said: "The sideways emitted light Annoyes ME.." and "Where I want the light to belong.."


Best Regards,


Ra.


----------



## David_Web (Sep 29, 2007)

Thanks Don. That is exactly how I feel. If I could have the light as I wanted it I would not care that much about efficiency. Luckily for me I pretty much want a nice beam with even light inside and no spill. TIR mostly does this right out of the box.
Not to say that you can't make a tir that behaves just like a reflector. Only the imagination is the limit. And maybe some laws of physics.

Ra
Please share more of your optics.
How do you make your simulations?


----------



## 2xTrinity (Sep 29, 2007)

> exactly, "can not prevent":
> 5 % loss at entering the media (=optic)
> 5 % loss at sides/back
> 5 % loss at leaving the media
> ...


Sure you can prevent those. Use anti-reflective coatings on the entrance/exit points, and high-reflective coatings on the sides/back. Coated TIR can theoretically be almost 100% in terms of both light transmission efficiency, and they can collimate a greater fraction of the light to begin with than a reflector as well. I'm sure the only reasons this hasn't been done are economic (not too much of a market for a super-fancy TIR lens meant for flashlights outside of CPF I suspect...) Hopefully though as LEDs begin to start replacing halogens for things like storefront spot-lighting more energy will be put into designing good TIR optics.


----------



## orbital (Sep 29, 2007)

+ 

Thanks everyone for your time and posts.
Don, its an honor.

I thought this thread may fire some people up, and thats good because it forces us to think outside the box. 
There are endless possibilities in ultra reflectives and shapes, to optics, maybe LED dome shape's'.....and brilliant combinations.....


----------



## DM51 (Sep 29, 2007)

I doubt we will see companies spending a lot of of R&D money improving low-end reflector systems, i.e. the sort most of us use in our lights. 

Why spend large sums of money trying to improve a reflector by say 5% (difficult to achieve) when all you have to do is wait a month or two and the latest bin LEDs have improved by much more than that? It is obviously going to be cheaper to stick with the existing range of reflectors, if they do a reasonable job, and use the latest LEDs to achieve the desired extra output. Improvements of less than ~25% are barely noticeable to even a discriminating consumer anyway.

For high-end (very expensive) reflectors, the story may well be different, but until technological improvements made in that area can be easily and cheaply replicated for the mass market, we consumers won't see any change.


----------



## Ra (Sep 30, 2007)

2xTrinity said:


> Sure you can prevent those. Use anti-reflective coatings on the entrance/exit points, and high-reflective coatings on the sides/back. Coated TIR can theoretically be almost 100% in terms of both light transmission efficiency, and they can collimate a greater fraction of the light to begin with than a reflector as well. I'm sure the only reasons this hasn't been done are economic (not too much of a market for a super-fancy TIR lens meant for flashlights outside of CPF I suspect...) Hopefully though as LEDs begin to start replacing halogens for things like storefront spot-lighting more energy will be put into designing good TIR optics.



Sure you can prevent those ??? 

Trinity, I still like to know where his 5+5+5% are based on: even the commonly aviable, uncoated TIR's do better than that !!


Regards,


Ra.


----------



## cryhavok (Oct 1, 2007)

Ra,
Any chance we could get a photo of the TIR you made in action? It would be interesting to see a shot of your TIR done in the same fashion as the pictures yellow posted.


----------



## Ra (Oct 1, 2007)

cryhavok said:


> Ra,
> Any chance we could get a photo of the TIR you made in action? It would be interesting to see a shot of your TIR done in the same fashion as the pictures yellow posted.



Ofcource I can:









And with camera a little further away:






The TIR on the pics is not finished: the circle of light on the floor below is about 4% reflection at the front-surface: that will be gone and added to the main beam when the TIR is coated..

Let me know what you think of this..


Regards,

Ra.


----------



## Ra (Oct 1, 2007)

And this is the pattern of my new Microblaster:

The optic inside has 15.5mm diameter and is multilayer coated..












Regards,

Ra.


----------



## yellow (Oct 1, 2007)

simply: this pic is great, :thumbs up:
I just knew acrylic optics by now and here is almost no light at all sides and back
(btw: how come You can produce glass optics?)


As far as has been the "thumb rule" by now, the 5 % is an optimum! value of light loss, when there is a media transition. Only special coatings might be better, while normal lenses, optics, ..., will be worse
(media transition= from air to transparent media, or reverse)

PS: I own a few lights with a TIR and I hate that kind of beam, its useless. (just got them to act as hosts)
When riding a bike, maybe such a beam is good for not blinding someone on the street with spill, but one could also point the "main beam" (of a flashlight ) down and not have it light horizontally. Also I do like not to hit some low hanging objects with my head because the "no spill" did not show it.


----------



## DM51 (Oct 1, 2007)

Ra, that little Microblaster is just beautiful...


----------



## Robocop (Oct 2, 2007)

I remember reading long past about a light that a member was playing around with and it had a radical reflector design.....cant find it for some reason however I believe it was McGizmo.

Seems like I remember the reflector having 2 sections that collapsed inward with one setting allowing a flood then when extended out the same reflector gave more throw.....anyone else remember that thread???

If I remember correct it was made almost like placing several cones inside one another or say using a 20mm reflector with a smaller 17mm reflector inside. I may be wrong however I swear I remember something like this and have searched the archives with no luck.


----------



## cryhavok (Oct 2, 2007)

Ra,

Thanks! Those are some excellent shots...They really show the potential of a real TIR.


----------



## mahoney (Oct 2, 2007)

The two part reflector is indeed McGizmo's work. Here's a link

http://dmcleish.com/CPF/zoom-reflector/index.html


----------



## tebore (Oct 3, 2007)

Ra you should really sell some of those things. Or Patent it and sell the idea to someone who could make them. 

They look so cool.


----------



## Ra (Oct 4, 2007)

tebore said:


> Ra you should really sell some of those things. Or Patent it and sell the idea to someone who could make them.
> 
> They look so cool. :drool"



I think selling these is not going to happen: For me, making just one takes two full days!! (and beleve me, I'm fast!!..). In that time, at least some 500 of those acryllic optics leave the factory!
Mine are just about 5% more efficient. Do you think there is a market for that??

OK.,, Apart from the 5% extra efficiency, there are other reasons for a glass based TIR: Much lower thermal expansion. Much harder material: You can easily clean them with most solvents without damaging them, preserving the total reflection inside.

Ofcource, being from massive material, glass based TIR's only are usefull for use with small torches up to perhaps 50mm TIR-diameter. Go beond that, and they meight become too heavy.



Regards,

Ra.


----------



## chesterqw (Oct 4, 2007)

Ra, you just owned INOVA pityful TIR's optic ***.

your optic has no light esacaping from the sides!!!!

how the heck did you keep the surface of it clean?

your optic perform like it would on the book...

heck, if i have to pay $10~$20 of that reflector, i would.(of course, it depends on my pocket too)


----------



## Dr.Glock27 (Oct 4, 2007)

I own a hospital and my optomitrist an I share the same passion: flashlights. He just developed a new reflector that is actually made of glass. He utilized the same principles of fiber optics and ultra polished the lens similar to an aspheric type. I'll try to share a photo if we will be able to perfect the system. This I assure you--it converts a P2D CE to a monster thrower.:twothumbs


----------



## Bort (Oct 5, 2007)

Ra said:


> Hi Gunner12,
> 
> I must slightly correct you on something:
> 
> ...



Excellent work, Sir! :twothumbs


----------



## wakibaki (Oct 7, 2007)

Bort

Please do not quote high-bandwidth posts for mere sycophantic congratulation.

w


----------



## DM51 (Oct 7, 2007)

At least Bort's post was polite. Yours, however, was somewhat deficient in that respect.


----------



## Size15's (Oct 8, 2007)

Steady-on guys - we appreciate your desire to try to help our CPF community but as you may be able to appreciate, CPF Staff are interested in reducing disruption - and in this case - the in-public bickering has caused more disruption than the reason for the bickering in the first place.

A polite word in email/pm to a CPF Moderator or Administrator about something is much more likely to have a positive (less disruptive) outcome.

Regards,
Al


----------



## lctorana (Feb 19, 2008)

Ra said:


> Soon, I'll try to make one with a more reasonable 50mm diameter...


 
Ra,
Any progress on the 50mm TR front?


----------



## cerbie (Feb 19, 2008)

Hi, thread necromancers. :wave:

Why aren't optics more geared towards spill? Not necessarily in general, but why aren't there some that can best reflectors of the size in an overall balanced beam?

Consider the well-known Maglight reflector, with a LED, focused to a point. It's not the prettiest beam (not the ugliest, either, though), but it's very useful, with a good point, and lots of very dim spill. A great walking beam.

Now, consider a TIR beam that made a ~5 degree *cone*, instead of that point, and also gave 90-110 degrees of even but dim spill. In usefulness, it would blow the 'normal' beam away, and not be so big as even the small reflectors that do it, on top of being able to offer a better quality wider spill, and that oh-so-cool die projection, when you get it fit just right.


----------



## maxa beam (Feb 19, 2008)

Ra said:


> Hi Gunner12,
> 
> I must slightly correct you on something:
> 
> ...


Whoo, RA. Fancy optics, there. Nice mathness. Imagine a 3 thousand lumen torch with one of those suckers. Expensive, probably, but, meh.


----------



## Ra (Feb 20, 2008)

cerbie said:


> Hi, thread necromancers. :wave:
> 
> Why aren't optics more geared towards spill? Not necessarily in general, but why aren't there some that can best reflectors of the size in an overall balanced beam?
> 
> ...




You are absolutely right!

But not everyone meight think that way: Some very much like the "spill-less" , high-throw beam of an aspherical lens-Cree setup..

In most cases, when you are able to make a balanced system with a few degree spot and still very usable sidespill, the light within the spill is not used for the spot: Throw will be less, but not much, not everyone knows this, and not everyone wants to lose even 5% throw!

Glass-based TIR-optics can be made with exactly the beampattern as you desire: A small area around the center-hole must be given a slightly different radius or curvature: The most of the reflector-surface still creating pure throw, the center for sidespill.

One of the big advantages of glass-based TIR is: You have 95% torchlumens to play with. You only need some 10% for decent sidespill: Still a very reasonable 85% left for Throw!

Why only 10% is needed for spill: Light followes the reverse square law: You need a certain amount of light to enlighten an object at, lets say 50 yards.. For the enlightening of an object at half that distance, you only need one fourth of the light! Beleve it: It is a fact!
So, as the objects one wants to enlighten with the sidespill are usually much closer, you don't need much light to effectively enlighten them!

Back to TIR-optics: They have one disavantage: Very poor (practically none!) focusabillity! They only work fine, exactly matched to the type and geometrics of the emitter, and with the emitter-die exactly at focus!

So, like I said earlier, if you want a beampattern with a perfect balance between throw and flood, it can be done, but as the acryllic-TIR manifacturers didn't come up with that idea (yet..) you propably must do it yourself.. (I do..) The problem is: practically no CPF-member is capable of doing this.. And I don't have the time to make them for them.. (and they will be expensive too: need lots of time)


I hope you're still awake after this...:sleepy:


Best regards,

Ra.


----------



## lctorana (Feb 20, 2008)

Amen, Ra.
_(ancient Egyptian joke)_

Earlier in this thread, you mentioned looking into making a 50mm TIR.

(I tried to ask about that a few posts up, but couldn't spell "TIR"...)

I would love to buy a 50mm TIR, but can't find anything larger than 35mm for a single LED...

Bruce.


----------



## Ra (Feb 20, 2008)

lctorana said:


> Amen, Ra.
> _(ancient Egyptian joke)_
> 
> Earlier in this thread, you mentioned looking into making a 50mm TIR.
> ...



Sorry, still "looking into making.." Can take another year.. not shure.. And if I ever start selling a few of them, they will be expensive: $250 (-ish)

I'm not shure if anyone is stupid (no offence..) enough to meet that prize!

But: When type of emitter and desired beampattern is known, things will be perfect!


Ra.


----------



## divine (Feb 20, 2008)

Hey Ra,

When I picture the TIR in my head, I always think it would be better with a reflector around it. Why doesn't anyone put a reflector around this?

Your diagram is very nice, it explained a few things about TIR by itself.

I'm surprised that you don't get more light loss just from passing through that much glass, I mean, we lose 2% going through a UCL, don't we? Your light must be passing through 8-10 times more glass before it exits the light.


----------



## Ra (Feb 20, 2008)

divine said:


> Hey Ra,
> 
> When I picture the TIR in my head, I always think it would be better with a reflector around it. Why doesn't anyone put a reflector around this?
> 
> ...



Reflector around it?? It is a reflector! And a very efficient one: Inside, 100% of the light is reflected, no conventional reflector can do that!

If you would mount a reflector around it, it would simply not receive any light !

The UCL losses are mainly reflection-losses at the surfaces, only 0.1-0.15% is lost by absorbtion inside the UCL ! The transmission of the optical grade BK-7 I use for my TIR-optics is 99.4% per cm thickness..


Best,

Ra.


----------



## maxa beam (Feb 20, 2008)

You know, guys, there ARE flashlights out there with TIR'S on them.


----------



## Ra (Feb 20, 2008)

maxa beam said:


> You know, guys, there ARE flashlights out there with TIR'S on them.



:duh2:... Really??? :thinking:...

Sorry, just teasing you..

No offence,

But we all know that maxa beam... But those are acryllic-based TIR's: 'only' 90% efficient (which is still great ofcource). But they have huge thermal expansion, and can easily be damaged because the acryllic material is very weak. They are only aviable in a few small sizes.
But they are a cheap alternative..

We are talking glass-based TIR's.

So only if you know any flashlights with glass-based TIR's, we're interested..


Best,

Ra.


----------



## LukeA (Feb 20, 2008)

What about polycarbonate? It can be made plenty clear enough. Is the coefficient of expansion better?


----------



## enLIGHTenment (Feb 21, 2008)

maxa beam said:


> You know, guys, there ARE flashlights out there with TIR'S on them.



Not very many that are well built, have usable interfaces and use modern LEDs.


----------



## Ra (Feb 21, 2008)

LukeA said:


> What about polycarbonate? It can be made plenty clear enough. Is the coefficient of expansion better?



I don't have info on that..

But I know that polycarbonate lenses still need a hard protective coating to protect them from getting scratched easily..


Ra.


----------



## NA8 (Feb 21, 2008)

Wow, great thread. Very interesting stuff on TIR optics. Looking forward to what happens. I hope we don't end up with most flashlights having cheap optics that have a tiny hot spot and zilch spill. I don't mind having one throw monster flashlight, but I prefer something with spill to light up a room or hallway. Although the technology is dated, my 4C Maglite with a Malkoff drop in has a wonderful ability to focus from a strong hotspot to almost no hotspot. Lots of losses, but the Malkoff has lots of lumens to start with. Looking forward to the new UA2 Surefire. Sounds like it's going to be a fun light.


----------



## copperfox (Feb 22, 2008)

Why does it seem that most non-focusable flashlights have such a concentrated hotspot? I know the companies are probably aware of the ugly donut hole caused when the bulb/emitter is moved up or down relative to the reflector, so they just concentrate the beam to a single spot to avoid this. My question is: Why can't a reflector be designed to give a wider hotspot without any artifacts? 

Frosting the bulb and texturing the reflector are good starts, but I can't understand why the shape of the reflector can't do this by itself. 

Kudos to the Novatac for its beam pattern.

And one more thing! Why don't moden LEDs have circular phosphors?! The Cree looks like a square with a grid on it, the Rebel looks like a waffle, and the Seoul is just kinda square. Wouldn't circular phosphors result in a better beam pattern? :thinking:

Edit: Surefire has done a good job of improving the beam pattern for hotwire lights, but what about the poor people who don't want to spend so much money or use a flashlight that doesn't take CR123s?


----------



## scaredofthedark (Apr 7, 2008)

sorry to bring up a month old thread but im wondering
would TIR also work with incans, as it works with LEDs?
or is the light emitted from the filament too scattered to design a proper optic for it


----------



## Zoofa88 (Apr 8, 2008)

orbital said:


> There seems to be a couple of facts with lights:
> 
> 1. The light engines will get much more powerful
> 2. Battery technology will improve
> ...



It also leaves the user interface, the form factor, the construction materials, and so on. There are many things that contribute to a quality flashlight that have nothing to do with the beam.


----------



## Illum (Apr 8, 2008)

copperfox said:


> the Rebel looks like a waffle


:lolsign: I had to laugh, sorry 

I think its more economical to build them into squares, considering theres going to be alot of waste if the dies are to be cut from squares into circles. Some companies like Edison have been putting effort in compensating the "curves" using added phosphor layers around the die. As of the results I don't know of any comparison threads that discusses specially on why dies are the way they are


----------



## 2xTrinity (Apr 8, 2008)

> Why does it seem that most non-focusable flashlights have such a concentrated hotspot? I know the companies are probably aware of the ugly donut hole caused when the bulb/emitter is moved up or down relative to the reflector, so they just concentrate the beam to a single spot to avoid this. My question is: Why can't a reflector be designed to give a wider hotspot without any artifacts?


A reflector _can _be desigened to produce just about any beam pattern imaginable. The fact is, most flashlight designers simply _don't_ design their products with actual usability in mind.



> sorry to bring up a month old thread but im wondering
> would TIR also work with incans, as it works with LEDs?
> or is the light emitted from the filament too scattered to design a proper optic for it


I haven't heard of incan being used with TIR, but incan can be used in a "projector" configuration, that is, an aspheric lens, along with an ellipsoidal reflector.

A parabolic reflector, what most reflectors in flashlights are, is basically an ellipse with one focal point at "infinity" so that all the light exits in a straight line. With an ellopsoidal reflector, you concentrate all the light from the filament back down to a single point, coinciding with the focal point of a lens. If the spacing between the two foci in the ellipse is the same as the focal length on the aspheric, You can then use the lens to direct ALL the light from the filament.

If a flashlight were to be made that actually focused the light output using optics, rather than simply moving a parabolic reflector into and out of focus, you could have spot to flood focusability WITHOUT any donut holes.


----------



## yaesumofo (Apr 8, 2008)

I believe that the TIR OPTIC which surefire uses in the E1B is made from PYREX glass.
TIR optics are very cool. they work as well as reflectors IMHO. They are very efficient. They do a very good job of concentrating the light from an emitter and creating a beam from it.
I am not sure why but I think that TIR optical based systems are becoming more and more popular. Surefire has spent BIG money on R and D for the purpose of designing these systems for military focused equipment.

We will be seeing more optics than reflectors in the future.
That optic you made is very cool I wish I had the knowledge and equipment to do that.
Yaesumofo



Ra said:


> The TIR-optics used in flashlights by some brands, are acrylic based: More fragile, can easily be damaged, huge thermal expansion. But they are easy to make. (at $3-$6 each)
> They have about 90% efficiency, which indeed is much better than conventional reflectors
> 
> Glass-based TIR-reflectors are much, much, much harder to make ! I don't know anyone or any brand that makes them.. Do you ??
> ...


----------



## yaesumofo (Apr 8, 2008)

SureFire has several high quality flashlights which use TIR optical systems.
They have been using TIR optics for quite some time. The first I remember is the older KL3 led head.

I beleive that INOVA has also produced lights with TIR optics with some success.

TIR optics are not a "NEW" concept. They are however growing in their use.
Yaesumofo




enLIGHTenment said:


> Not very many that are well built, have usable interfaces and use modern LEDs.


----------



## scaredofthedark (Apr 8, 2008)

the whole point of using a TIR lens was that it doesn't have loss attributed to the reflectors, resulting in higher efficiency while redirecting the light.
the projector system still has the weaklink that is the reflector, so i see no point in using that over the usual reflector assembly


----------



## Hitthespot (Apr 8, 2008)

While I have enjoyed my first optics light the E1B and look forward to other lights of this type, I don't believe reflector advancements are dead. Take a look at the newly designed Streamlight Super Tac, It may look unconventional (it actually looks like a bell ) but at 135 lumens it out throws every light I have by a considerable margin and still provides a large portion of light for spill. I guess you could debate if its an actual advancement, but it is a new design and works extremely well.

Bill


----------



## Size15's (Apr 8, 2008)

Yaesumofo,
I understand that all of SureFire's proprietary TIR optics are Cyclo-Olefin Copolymer (example Zeonex) which is a non-acrylic based thermo plastic.

They are more efficient that reflectors by an obvious margin. The 'trick' is being able to manipulate the light in the design of the non-imaging optic to give you the beam you desire without wasting the light.


----------



## kaichu dento (Apr 9, 2008)

2xTrinity said:


> If a flashlight were to be made that actually focused the light output using optics, rather than simply moving a parabolic reflector into and out of focus, you could have spot to flood focusability WITHOUT any donut holes.


Yes please!

I hope the makers are paying attention on this subject.


----------



## MetalZone (Apr 9, 2008)

Size15's said:


> Yaesumofo,
> I understand that all of SureFire's proprietary TIR optics are Cyclo-Olefin Copolymer (example Zeonex) which is a non-acrylic based thermo plastic.



I suppose he came to that conclusion because SureFire advertises it as "Coated Pyrex Window for maximum light transmission"
Does that mean that only the front window is Pyrex?



Ra said:


> Back to TIR-optics: They have one disavantage: Very poor (practically none!) focusabillity! They only work fine, exactly matched to the type and geometrics of the emitter, and with the emitter-die exactly at focus!



First, I like your work RA. 
SureFire seems to have come up with a focusable TIR with the UA2 Optimus. They called it a "zoom plate" in their marketing. Essentially, the focusing is done after collimating the light from the LED. The LED stays at it's optimum focus point. Not the 'Mag-Light' kind of focusing where the LED moves to create spot to flood, which of course ends up with a huge loss in efficiency once it is out of it's optimum focus.


----------



## Size15's (Apr 9, 2008)

MetalZone said:


> I suppose he came to that conclusion because SureFire advertises it as "Coated Pyrex Window for maximum light transmission"
> Does that mean that only the front window is Pyrex?


Only the front window?
There is only one window. It is Pyrex.

The difference between a window and an optic/lens is explained by SureFire in their 'The SureFire Difference' sections of their catalogs.


----------



## MetalZone (Apr 9, 2008)

Size15's said:


> Only the front window?
> There is only one window. It is Pyrex.
> 
> The difference between a window and an optic/lens is explained by SureFire in their 'The SureFire Difference' sections of their catalogs.



Sorry I meant to ask if the window and TIR Optics are actually separate parts. So that answers it. 

I, like Yaesumofo, had wondered if the Window and TIR are actually one part by itself, instead of seperate parts. So I guess that's how he assumed that the TIR was made from Pyrex.


----------



## st4r_314 (Apr 14, 2008)

copperfox said:


> And one more thing! Why don't moden LEDs have circular phosphors?! The Cree looks like a square with a grid on it, the Rebel looks like a waffle, and the Seoul is just kinda square.


The 1 watt LED from Avago looks round (Moonstone series). Click for picture 

 Another picture


Illum_the_nation said:


> I think its *more economical* to build them into squares, considering theres going to be alot of waste if the dies are to be cut from squares into circles. Some companies like Edison have been putting effort in compensating the "curves" using added phosphor layers around the die.


I agree that economic reasons are why a square is chosen over a circle.


copperfox said:


> Wouldn't circular phosphors result in a better beam pattern? :thinking:


Good question, I don't know.


----------

