# Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting matchup?



## ledmitter_nli (Feb 11, 2013)

In terms of lux and output I really wonder what the Surefire can do and why they chose this "proprietary" green + white LED die package. 6 green dies on the outside 2 white on this inside.

A little later they show their new ARC lineup. The arc test shots also show green, I wonder if his camera is doing this and the green LED isn't green afterall? :thinking:



Check out 3:06

There's no doubt the Annihilator is going to cost a lot as well. 

Another prototype and some talk about it. They show the LED and are calling it the LED's answer to the HID.









That's a big freaking LED oo:


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Feb 11, 2013)

Ah, you wouldn't like it. The tint on that LED isn't so great 

Y'all help me out. Is that the SBT-90? And isn't the LED answer to HID stuff from Saabluster? Green and red have special signaling and military uses, right?


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Feb 11, 2013)

AnAppleSnail said:


> Ah, you wouldn't like it. The tint on that LED isn't so great
> 
> Y'all help me out. Is that the SBT-90? And isn't the LED answer to HID stuff from Saabluster? Green and red have special signaling and military uses, right?



SBT-90 is smaller. This LED is HUGE. It's a proprietary modular die design on one chip.


----------



## The_Driver (Feb 11, 2013)

I don't think it's custom at all. That would be extremely expensive for SureFire. Especially so since this is not a light that they will sell that many of (imho). Selling 10000 to the military is not thaat much... 
Since it seems to be too small for a CBT-90 used in the Dominator it might be a Luminus CBT-140. Thats a bigger version which can take a lot more current/power (up to 21A / 75W!!!!). 
The special thing about both leds is that they are factory mounted on a very thick copper pcb for better heatsinking.

*EDIT:* Another thing one needs to realize is that the CBT-140 is actually a bigger version of the SBT-70, which has a round die. This means you get more throw and an almost perfect beam. 
The emitting area (die) of the CBT-140 has a Diameter of 4,25mm. That means it's surface area is 14,2mm^2.
For comparison: the SST-90 and CBT-90 have a square die with a side length of 3mm which means the surface area is 9mm^2.
The SBT-70 has a diameter of 3mm which means that its surface area is 7,1mm^2.
The CBT-140 is exactly twice a big as the SBT-70.

*EDIT2: *I still think is looks very much like a CBT-90.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Feb 11, 2013)

The_Driver said:


> I don't think it's custom at all. That would be extremely expensive for SureFire. Especially so since this is not a light that they will sell that many of (imho). Selling 10000 to the military is not thaat much...
> Since it seems to be too small for a CBT-90 used in the Dominator it might be a Luminus CBT-140. Thats a bigger version which can take a lot more current/power (up to 21A / 75W!!!!).
> The special thing about both leds is that they are factory mounted on a very thick copper pcb for better heatsinking.
> 
> ...



In the video the rep said it is a proprietary design they are working with a supplier to provide. Surefire is the wealthiest "flashlight" company in the world.

I don't think cost is an issue for them.


----------



## KarstGhost (Feb 11, 2013)

Wouldn't a larger die produce more flood and be more difficult to focus for throw/challenge HIDs?


----------



## The_Driver (Feb 11, 2013)

KarstGhost said:


> Wouldn't a larger die produce more flood and be more difficult to focus for throw/challenge HIDs?



Yes it would be be. 
Challenging HIDs isn't really that difficult anymore (especially if both lights are of the same size/diameter).


----------



## dudemar (Feb 12, 2013)

Might win in the lumens department, not so much in terms of lux/throw.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 16, 2013)

The_Driver said:


> Challenging HIDs isn't really that difficult anymore (especially if both lights are of the same size/diameter).



Depends on what you mean by "challenging."


----------



## one2tim (Feb 18, 2013)

The_Driver said:


> Yes it would be be.
> Challenging HIDs isn't really that difficult anymore (especially if both lights are of the same size/diameter).



might be the case for many HID's but I'd like to see the led light of same size that can beat the firefoxes ff3 in either lumen or throw. HID's are evolving too, looking forward to both the firefoxes ff4 and xeray's new lights.


----------



## ampdude (Feb 18, 2013)

The new HID ARClights look pretty bright, not crazy about the tint or size though, I'll stick with my (brighter) FF3.


----------



## The_Driver (Feb 18, 2013)

one2tim said:


> might be the case for many HID's but I'd like to see the led light of same size that can beat the firefoxes ff3 in either lumen or throw. HID's are evolving too, looking forward to both the firefoxes ff4 and xeray's new lights.



You can't. There is none at the moment. Especially not if you also need that much throw (200klux??). The current big-die leds (SST-90, CBT-70/140 etc) are not very efficient. 

My comment was more from a practical standpoint, when you are not spending 1000$+ on a polarion, but more like 200-300$ on a 35W HID like the Titanium Innovations L35. A light like the Olight SR-95 with 2000 otf Lumen and 100klux certainly challenges a typical HID like that. 
LED light with big reflectors almost always have very even hotspots (except for maybe a doughnut hole). They also usually have a very even, bright spill. So when an L35 (with a typical HID-like, irregular hotspot and more yellow, lux-meter pleasing tint) supposedly does 235klux and a SR-95 does "only" 100klux the difference isn't as big as it might seem (also taking into account the logarithmic nature of our eyes).
With "challenging" I mean, that one light illuminates a target just as well as another one from a practical standpoint (you can hardly see a difference of say 10%).

I also find the new arc lights very interesting, but dislike the tints seen in the videos.


----------



## andromeda.73 (Feb 18, 2013)

My God!


----------



## ampdude (Feb 18, 2013)

The Driver, do you really believe the output of an Olight is any way comparable to a Firefoxes FF3? Seriously?

The FF3 makes my Surefire M6 with MN21 HOLA look like a Maglite Solitaire. And a high powered LED light like one of those old multi-5mm LED shower head lights.

While I'm still impressed with the M6 for what it is, and I keep it as a backup "BIG" light, I don't pretend that the output is anywhere close to the FF3.

The M6 has other things going for it, like instant on, easily replaceable lamp assemblies and easily replaceable batteries.


----------



## The_Driver (Feb 19, 2013)

ampdude said:


> The Driver, do you really believe the output of an Olight is any way comparable to a Firefoxes FF3? Seriously?
> 
> The FF3 makes my Surefire M6 with MN21 HOLA look like a Maglite Solitaire. And a high powered LED light like one of those old multi-5mm LED shower head lights.
> 
> ...



Please read my comment again. 



> You can't. There is none at the moment. Especially not if you also need that much throw (200klux??).



The FireFoxes FF3 is unique and certianly can't be beaten on output and throw at the same time. The output alone will be reached at some point in the next year or two (Nitecore Tm26 ist already doing 3500 Lumens, but doesn't throw anywhere near as far). The throw has already been reached, but with a quarter of the lumens (modded lights with a single, de-domed led in a big reflector). 

Here is a very nice beamshot comparison with some big led lights and the FF3. It definitely produces the most lumens.

One still has to consider though that it step down after 10-15min (when it's not cold outside). The warm-up time (15s iirc) also needs to be considered. 

Concerning your M6: thats a completely unfair comparison. The MN21 in that light ist rated at 500 otf lumens by SureFire. Probably more with fresh batteries. The FF3 produces *8 times* that much light. 


But all of this doesn't mean that the FF3 is thaat much mor practical than the other lights. Look at the zoomed in beamshots of the FF3 and TK-75 for example. The difference is certainly noticeably, but not thaat dramatic. Would it make a difference for someone looking at a distance like that (under 200 yards)? Maybe, maybe not...

Please remember this is just my opinion. I have personally tried out the FF3 and liked it a lot (except for the very loud whine).

@Patriot36: I like your YouTube-videos . Could you do one on the FF3 and more importantly on some of your other, bigger lights? Maybe some of the customs? Maybe on your SureFire M6(s)? I think many people here would really enjoy those...


----------



## ampdude (Feb 19, 2013)

You must have had one of the early models, mine does not whine after about two seconds. I know the early models had that problem and then I believe they potted them and it seems to have worked. The biggest and really only issue I have with the FF3 is that it won't run on primaries.


----------



## The_Driver (Feb 19, 2013)

ampdude said:


> You must have had one of the early models, mine does not whine after about two seconds. I know the early models had that problem and then I believe they potted them and it seems to have worked. The biggest and really only issue I have with the FF3 is that it won't run on primaries.



Yes it was an "early" model. I got to try it out a get-together her in Germany last summer (could have been August).


----------



## Patriot (Feb 22, 2013)

The_Driver said:


> @Patriot36: I like your YouTube-videos . Could you do one on the FF3 and more importantly on some of your other, bigger lights? Maybe some of the customs? Maybe on your SureFire M6(s)? I think many people here would really enjoy those...




Thanks very much TD! I'll probably not post any videos of the M6's, even modified. Although a legacy light, it's a dated light from a different era, still valid and useful in it's own right but not comparable to the multi-emitter lights of today. I might make mention of it in my EA4 review, however. 


> The_Driver
> My comment was more from a practical standpoint, when you are not spending 1000$+ on a polarion, but more like 200-300$ on a 35W HID like the Titanium Innovations L35. A light like the Olight SR-95 with 2000 otf Lumen and 100klux certainly challenges a typical HID like that.
> LED light with big reflectors almost always have very even hotspots (except for maybe a doughnut hole). They also usually have a very even, bright spill. So when an L35 (with a typical HID-like, irregular hotspot and more yellow, lux-meter pleasing tint) supposedly does 235klux and a SR-95 does "only" 100klux the difference isn't as big as it might seem. With "challenging" I mean, that one light illuminates a target just as well as another one from a practical standpoint (you can hardly see a difference of say 10%).




Except the difference between 235K lux and 100K lux isn't 10%. 

In trying to diagnose this mini debate, both perspectives have some valid points but I think the key problem lies in the generality of the original premise; "Challenging HIDs isn't really that difficult anymore." Obviously, this notion raised my eyebrow as well, although I read it as a generality because there's no reason to hold one's feet to the fire over something rather insignificant. Further articulation/clarification on your part makes it sound a little bit like your trying to look at the performance differences both subjective and objectively, only the objective numbers don't really favor the original premise. 

Please understand, I get subjectivity when it comes to this topic! In fact, most of my HID buddies here have heard me say that an SR90/95 or TK75 will do 90% of the things I need to do with a light. One of my favorite LED lights right now only peaks out at 43K lux...lol. When it comes to objective differences however, the nice thing about physics is that it's consistent. On that front, the numbers lean way over to HID. With regards to the inconsistencies of meters, according to the guru's over at photoforum, they're typically calibrated at 5200-5500K. This means that the further we move away from that 5350K average, the lower the meter reads. This actually favors a lot of the LED's we're seeing today rather than overdriven 35W lamps. With regards to beamshots, remember that there's a lot more discrepancies and variables associated with cameras than there are light meters. In any case, it's a small point but we don't want to arbitrarily chalk up a measuring instrumentation advantage to HID. 

The difference between a 200 or 300K lux beam as compared to 100K lux beam is objectively substantial as well as subjectively significant (in my opinion) as we push each type to it's very limits. That is to say, if I incrementally increase the distance between my TK75 and my target until I can barely see it, then move back another 50 meters, it's essentially invisible. Now turn on the 250K Lux HID and it's literally, 'a night and day' distinction. With one light, the target is not even there and with the HID light it's highly visible. Now shine both lights at 150 meters on the side of a building, it's easy to say "wow, that TK75 does really well" and it does....subjectively. The former example would be in contradiction to your comment "one light illuminates a target just as well as another one from a practical standpoint" while the later example would somewhat support your comment. See how it all hinges on one's definition of practicality, which is inherently subjective.

On a partial side note, I remember the original announcement of the SST-90 and how it was the overnight "death of HID." I said at that time that it wasn't the immediate death/end or even the death/end of HID in 2-3 years. Here we are four years later and there's still a large objective performance gap between LED and HID. Don't expect any earth shattering increasing in LED surface brightness or efficiency in the next couple of years either because the technology just doesn't change that rapidly. Large performance increases are measured in 10%-15% gaits. We really need a 3500L single die LED the size of the XM-L to catch up to 35/40W HIDs and I just don't see that happening in the next 2 years. Will it happen eventually? If consumer demand and industry requirements necessitate, of course! For now, the LED's main advantages are that it can be packaged smaller, it has virtually unlimited tint flexibility and multi-mode capability with ultra-long runtimes. In short, they're incredibly versatile and ideal for what most flashlights are used for.


----------



## The_Driver (Feb 24, 2013)

Thanks for posting your thoughts on this topic Patriot 

Please take at look at these beamshots, which were taken at a get-together here in Germany on Friday. I wasn't there, unfortunately. The guy in the street is 200m in the distance and the shots are zoomed in. You can only see the spot and the corona of each light. 2 of the light are modded with heavily overdriven, de-domed leds. The BTU Shocker has 3 U3 XM-Ls (2,9A each and mounted on copper PCBs) and does 245,000lux. Here you can find more information on it and more beamshots (use google translate, it's German). The "LED LASER (Crazy TORCH)" (I know, funny name) is a modded Trustfire T8 that has a de-domed XP-G2 @ 5A (!!) and has an SST-90 reflector from DX (very big). It does around 388,000lux. 

Now while the PH50 is still better, I would say that the modded BTU Shocker is getting pretty close to it (lux and lumen wise, but more on the lux side). When one considers that it is only running 10W through each led (lets say 35W total) and that it has rather small reflectors, I would that it's not too bad. The "Crazy Torch" definitely out-throws all the lights in the comparison, but it produces much less lumens and has a smaller hot-spot. 

The only somewhat practical led light light (at least which I know of) that actually beats the PH50 on throw and matches it on lumens is the EBL 6.1 Olympic-Torch. It has 6 XM-Ls. Three for flood and three for throw (different size reflectors). The flood and the throw (and the brightness) can be controlled independently form one another with a joystick. It does 422.625lux. Here is a beamshot comparison were the PH50 is also featured. The distance if 750m. Unfortunately this light is noticeably bigger and heavier than the Polarion and iirc the runtime is also shorter. I wish a manufacturer would make something similar to this (maybe bit less crazy ). Here is a funny video from its owner. 

I think these lights are definitely closer, than the Olight SR-90 was 3 years ago...

EDIT: I just remembered that you have to be registered to be able to click on the pictures


----------



## Smood (Feb 26, 2013)

The_Driver said:


> Thanks for posting your thoughts on this topic Patriot
> 
> Please take at look at these beamshots,



The forum forces us to sign up to see the pictures. I would sign up but I can't read german. The other link after that showing the Varapower, TN31 and BTU does work.


----------



## IMSabbel (Feb 26, 2013)

I would say that challening HIDs with LEDs is still very difficult. 

But that is a big change from only a few years ago, when it was plainly impossible.


----------



## TEEJ (Feb 26, 2013)

LED lights are going in the right direction.

The best can throw as far or further than at least some HID's ...but, typically not with as large a spot.

The limiting factors right now are the simple effective surface brightness of the emitter relative to the reflector...the LED can only be so bright as a source, and the HID can still produce a brighter source.

You can of course make larger and larger reflectors, and argue about if the minutes of HID run time can be compared to the hours of LED runtime, etc...but if we are just talking about the size of a beam at a max distance, the HID's have the advantage thus far at least.


----------



## get-lit (Feb 26, 2013)

TEEJ said:


> The limiting factors right now are the simple effective surface brightness of the emitter relative to the reflector...the LED can only be so bright as a source, and the HID can still produce a brighter source.
> 
> You can of course make larger and larger reflectors, and argue about if the minutes of HID run time can be compared to the hours of LED runtime, etc...but if we are just talking about the size of a beam at a max distance, the HID's have the advantage thus far at least.



This is precisely the point. When comparing LED vs HID, you have to compare the surface brightness of the source because reflectors and lenses etc are separate components that work with both types.

First off, LED is not purely electronic. Purely electronic would be using electronic excitation to generate light, such as a microwave. LED and HID are more alike than anything. They both use an anode and cathode to generate light through electron flow rather than electronic excitation. Both also use doping materials to alter properties of emitted light. The key difference here is that HID conducts electron flow in an open space instead of within semiconductor materials like LED.

This makes for the ultimate limitation for LED, because light is generated at the very location of the semiconductor materials which generate it. Since the source is within the semiconductor itself, the intensity of the light is ultimately limited by the endurance of the semiconductor materials. With HID, there is no such limitation, you can always go bigger and brighter because there is absolutely no material at the very location of the light source, it's strictly the plasma light itself, and heat can't harm the plasma, just makes it brighter. Also, the doping materials in HID, mostly metals, are so intense, they literally evaporate. This could never be done within a diode. HID does just what LED does, but without the limits of LED.

This is a fundamental physical difference that can't be changed. It doesn't matter if new semiconductor materials were found that can withstand super high temps. Yes it would raise the bar of "need" fulfillment from 90% to 99% for LED, but it's still a limitation that HID would laugh at.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 26, 2013)

The_Driver said:


> Thanks for posting your thoughts on this topic Patriot
> 
> Please take at look at these beamshots, which were taken at a get-together here in Germany on Friday. I wasn't there, unfortunately. The guy in the street is 200m in the distance and the shots are zoomed in. You can only see the spot and the corona of each light. 2 of the light are modded with heavily overdriven, de-domed leds. The BTU Shocker has 3 U3 XM-Ls (2,9A each and mounted on copper PCBs) and does 245,000lux. Here you can find more information on it and more beamshots (use google translate, it's German). The "LED LASER (Crazy TORCH)" (I know, funny name) is a modded Trustfire T8 that has a de-domed XP-G2 @ 5A (!!) and has an SST-90 reflector from DX (very big). It does around 388,000lux.
> 
> ...





Like you stated, I could only see a few pictures but not the beamshot comparison with HID. Based, on the throw figures of these LEDs though, I can already anticipate that they're going to appear very close. But, this is missing the point if we're really going to compare apples to apples. Although all of these comparisons are fun, it seems there's a lot of unintentional fudging and a bit of selective reasoning going on in the LED camp. 

You're comparing examples of highly modified, and custom LED lights to factory HIDs. It's like comparing junior series open wheel cars to production super cars where even a cursory look would indicate that the junior race cars are going to make a good showing. Even if we hold HID to production class how about we compare LED to a Maxa-beam or a 75W Barn Burner? It's only a 118mm reflector iirc. Or how about taking each technology to it's present maximum...Four Sevens Xm18 vs. Get-Lit's NightSword. Are we still willing to say they're close? Other fudging I've noted is that the Shocker is about and inch larger than the Polarion. The LED Crazy TORCH is a single XP-G2 producing roughly 500L regardless of its 388K lux. That's not "challenging HID" unless you're only measuring one data point. You've already pointed out the differences with regards to the O-Torch. Again, you don't compare this type of creation to a PH50, you compare it to BVH's MegaRay where the reality of HID hits home.

In any case, we can grant that when size and cost are kept close, LED has approached HID in the area of throw, but that's about it.


----------



## Smood (Feb 26, 2013)

Patriot said:


> Olight S18 vs. Get-Lit's NightSword.



What is the Olight S18? I did a google search for that and came up with nothing. Secondly the nightsword has a nearly 10 inch reflector. I hope that whatever LED light you compare it to has an identical reflector otherwise they will influence throw figures and will not be a controlled variable when comparing LED and HID technologies. 

Although I appreciate the points you have made I would volunteer that LED's will match HID's and eventually surpass them in all variables that we are interested to quantify (ie. throw, lumens, size.. etc). I wouldn't even say its a decade away. Of course this is just a prediction based on how fast LED's have advanced especially when compared to HIDs.



Patriot said:


> In any case, we can grant that when size and cost are kept close, LED has approached HID in the area of throw, but that's about it.



I have to disagree with this statement somewhat. You alluded to this earlier in your post but when you control for size and price I think LEDs can challenge HIDs in not only throw but also brightness/lumens quite easily,.... they just can't match both at the same time. The trick now is to build an LED that can match both these variables with size and price controlled... I do not think that has been done but the time is coming soon. 

I'd also like to remind you that LEDs have tons of advantages over HIDs, even in the big thrower light (search and rescue) scenario. Durability, better beam profiles etc... I'm sure you know this but it seems like you kind of look down upon LEDs and relegate them as 'lesser' lights. LEDs are the future... not HID.


----------



## get-lit (Feb 27, 2013)

This all comes down to luminance concentration, the capability to concentrate the most amount of light into the smallest area possible. The fact remains that HID luminance concentration is completely unlimited and LED is limited by the durability of materials within the luminance area to withstand the luminance concentration within it. There's no getting around this. As LED technology improves, it's luminance concentration may approach closer to some HID lamps, especially the lower concentrated ones like the automotive HID lamps and non short arc types, but could never be capable of achieving the luminance concentrations that HID is capable of. It's simply limited versus unlimited luminance concentration.

Apples to Apples would surely be comparing lights of the same aperture. If you take the short arc HID lamp of the Nightsword or MaxaBeam and put it in the same aperture as any possible future LED technology, the short arc HID lamp will always produce a more concentrated beam because such LED technology still could not have nearly the same luminance concentration, as such high luminance concentration would melt and evaporate any material the LED is made of. *It's literally an inferno packed into a tiny little point that is more intense than the surface of the sun, at over 10,000 degrees would evaporate any material within it. The very fact that LED has any material at the very location of the luminance area is it's ultimate limitation.

*I agree that LEDs may be the future, but only because of other advantages that I'm not much interested in. When it comes strictly to beam intensity, the fundamental limitation of LED prevents it from ever touching HID. Again I'm talking real HID with destructive luminance concentrations, not automotive HID and non short arc stuff.

On the other hand, laser is a different story. That's really going to be the game changer, because it produces nearly collimated light at the source rather than reflecting it to collimate it, but I prefer short arc HID because of the laws and restrictions on higher power lasers making them more and more unusable around the world, and as it stands HID is still much more powerful and efficient. The beam and spot in the clouds from a 1 watt laser are truly mesmerizing, until I fire up a test with short arc HID with 250 times the light output collimated to the same degree as the laser. Then the 1 watt laser is nearly invisible.

I really like the topic of this thread, as the title says, interesting match up? It definitely is, at least until a real short arc is thrown into the mix, but that's not what the OP is comparing.


----------



## IMSabbel (Feb 27, 2013)

You are using a false dichtonomy.

I have a laser pointer that projects a beam out that had an order of magnitude higher throw than any HID light in the world, and the spot comes from piece of material that is MAYBE 80C hot.

But if you look at it edge on, it has unparalleled surface brightness. 

You cannot compare plasma based and semiconductor based lighting solutions and simply use the "plasma is hotter than any condensed matter" deadbeat argument.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 28, 2013)

Smood said:


> What is the Olight S18? I did a google search for that and came up with nothing. Secondly the nightsword has a nearly 10 inch reflector. I hope that whatever LED light you compare it to has an identical reflector otherwise they will influence throw figures and will not be a controlled variable when comparing LED and HID technologies.
> 
> Although I appreciate the points you have made I would volunteer that LED's will match HID's and eventually surpass them in all variables that we are interested to quantify (ie. throw, lumens, size.. etc). I wouldn't even say its a decade away. Of course this is just a prediction based on how fast LED's have advanced especially when compared to HIDs.
> 
> ...





Sorry, I was thinking of the Four Sevens XM18 but a moment before was thinking of the Olight X6. The two got combined when I typed it out. Yes, they're comparable in size.

I don't think you've been following my statements in this thread, or my work on CPF, or youtube videos, if you got the impression that I "kind of look down upon LEDs and relegate them as lesser lights." 



> Patriot; For now, the LED's main advantages are that it can be packaged smaller, it has virtually unlimited tint flexibility and multi-mode capability with ultra-long runtimes. In short, they're incredibly versatile and ideal for what most flashlights are used for.





> Patriot; In fact, most of my HID buddies here have heard me say that an SR90/95 or TK75 will do 90% of the things I need to do with a light. One of my favorite LED lights right now only peaks out at 43K lux...lol.



Does this really sound as if I'm unaware of some of the advantages of LED? As I've always done, I state their strong suits and rightly point out where they're weaker. Exactly as Get-lit stated, LED's are the future BUT for different reasons. In this particular LED vs HID discussion one member said that "Challenging HIDs isn't really that difficult anymore" so some of us are clarifying/correcting the assertion. I specifically stated what WOULD finally "challenge" current 35/40W HID's given the same reflector sizes....



> Patriot; Large performance increases are measured in 10%-15% gaits. We really need a 3500L single die LED the size of the XM-L to catch up to 35/40W HIDs and I just don't see that happening in the next 2 years. Will it happen eventually? If consumer demand and industry requirements necessitate, of course!



Take a 75mm reflector in the Polarion for example, we would need an LED as described above to mimic the performance of the PH40. This is simple and straight forward. Simply combining current LED's as in the case of the Olight X6 for 5000L and 104K lux isn't matching the throw. Your quote;


> "I think LEDs can challenge HIDs in not only throw but also brightness/lumens quite easily,.... they just can't match both at the same time.


 For them to "match" at the same time is exactly the point of the discussion. We need an LED as I described. Can that happen? As stated previously, if consumer demand and industry requirements necessitate the development, yes. Will they? Who knows. As Get-lit mentioned, LED will likely NEVER attain the surface brightness necessary to out perform even EXISTING short arc lamps. The price point of arc lamp components could be prohibitive to the hobbyist/enthusiast however when we strictly consider the performance potential of existing arc lamps, LED technology may never approach its possibilities. We're on the verge of experiencing a piece of this truth with the NightSword and perhaps some creation from XeVision.

Lastly, to fortify my position I'd kindly ask Get-lit to estimate the throw and lumen output of the NightSword had it been created with a reflector half the size of say, 5" and based on what he says, ask yourself if there's any LED technology even remotely on the horizon with these capabilities.

Thanks Get-Lit


> Get-lit
> A P-VIP lamp having 22,000 lumen output within a 1mm arc gap and an AC luminance profile reflected from a 5" reflector would produce 25.5 MCP with optimized focal length, after reflector and lens losses.


----------



## get-lit (Feb 28, 2013)

IMSabbel, you read what I said wrong.. comparing surface brightness applies to LED and HID, because they both project a beam by collimating light via a reflector/reflector from as concentrated and condensed a source point as possible. Since LED could never concentrate light as much as HID, it can't generate as concentrated a beam when using the same aperture.

I also said this does not apply when when comparing to laser, because laser produces already nearly collimated light without having a large reflector/lens aperture which is why laser has the potential to produce a more concentrated beam than HID. Actually, the very reason I mentioned lasers was to illustrate that I'm not describing semiconductor vs HID, but any non-near-collimated source that uses a reflector/lens to collimate a beam.

I had not said that plasma is hotter than any condensed matter, I honestly don't even understand what it means or how it relates. What I said was HID is capable of surface brightness that melts any material, and since the light source of LED is inherently within the LED semiconductor material itself, LED could not have the same surface brightness capability as HID.

Out of curiosity, which laser do you have? The brightest lasers in the visible spectrum I was aware of were YAG with up to 50W of light output. I may pick up the new Spyder Krypton. I have the Arctic but it's not as collimated as I expected for a laser but the Krypton is supposed to be way better than the Arctic in both luminance and collimation.

*EDIT:* Will do patriot. Actually, there are HID lamps with higher surface brightness than the lamp in the Nightsword. The lamp in the Nightsword is chosen for several other factors that make it viable in a portable application with 70,000 lumen at the source. As of now, Osram X-Stage lamps are the pinnacle of surface brightness, but the lamps are massive and the power supplies are upwards of 100 lbs. P-VIP type lamps also have somewhat higher surface brightness than the Nightsword lamp but they have less than 1/3 the light output. The Nightsword shortened arc version of the Nightsword lamp that we're working on should approach the surface brightness of the P-VIP lamps with still more than 3 times the output. But for an example for now, I'll make calculations for a P-VIP lamp having a 5" reflector to make comparisons and will reply soon.


----------



## get-lit (Feb 28, 2013)

Ok Patriot...

A P-VIP lamp having 22,000 lumen output within a 1mm arc gap and an AC luminance profile reflected from a 5" reflector would produce 25.5 MCP with optimized focal length, after reflector and lens losses.

The upcoming shortened arc version of the Nightsword lamp with the same reflector would produce 30 MCP after losses and without retro-reflector, and would have 4.2 times the beam power (visibility in the sky) as the P-VIP in the same configuration. This is equivalent to the NightSun SX-16 Searchlight having a 9.85" reflector.

Just for fun, the Osram XStage 3000 would produce 37 MCP with 10 times the beam power (visibility in the sky) as the P-VIP in the same configuration.

EDIT: For throw, the MCP figure is equivalent to lux @ 1 km.


----------



## get-lit (Feb 28, 2013)

Kind of back on topic, I think LED has already surpassed HID in most of applications. For instance, I bicycle ride at night, up to 80 miles at a time and need a bright long lasting light. A few years back I only would have gone with HID but now LED is the clear choice. HID really only has an advantage with higher output when the point is reached at which luminance concentrations evaporate everything within it, it's a very rare application.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 28, 2013)

get-lit said:


> Ok Patriot...
> 
> A P-VIP lamp having 22,000 lumen output within a 1mm arc gap and an AC luminance profile reflected from a 5" reflector would produce 25.5 MCP with optimized focal length, after reflector and lens losses.
> 
> ...




Absulutely astonishing! These numbers are truly in a different universe...

Thanks for the help buddy!


----------



## Patriot (Feb 28, 2013)

get-lit said:


> Kind of back on topic, I think LED has already surpassed HID in most of applications. For instance, I bicycle ride at night, up to 80 miles at a time and need a bright long lasting light. A few years back I only would have gone with HID but now LED is the clear choice. HID really only has an advantage with higher output when the point is reached at which luminance concentrations evaporate everything within it, it's a very rare application.




I perhaps have an actual need for HID 2 or 3 times per year during my outdoing activities. Every other outing I use LED, hiking, Mtn Biking, exploring small caves and mines, walking after dark. They're just too versatile to ignore.


----------



## Kaban (Feb 28, 2013)

I am trying not to get too excited here because I have a feeling the price tag will easily be over $1000 on this... just a gut feeling.


----------



## CouldUseALight (Mar 1, 2013)

Patriot said:


> ...if I incrementally increase the distance between my TK75 and my target until I can barely see it, then move back another 50 meters, it's essentially invisible. Now turn on the 250K Lux HID and it's literally, 'a night and day' distinction. With one light, the target is not even there and with the HID light it's highly visible.



Love HIDs, but this has not been my experience in use, because in practice the HID does two counter-productive things: 
1. Blinding close-in spill that washes out light coming from the far target (maybe I haven't found the right reflector yet) :thinking:
2. Unsteady "bolting" light that changes color with flashlight movement and orientation.

Trying to make out animals at a third-mile+, I have found myself fighting the spilly dancing HID, and more informed by the SR95sUT. :shrug: (YMMV, as always!) 

HID spills so much brightness that my eyes adjust to the light at my feet. Even though the HID puts more light on the far target, there's too much close-in-brightness and ground glare to allow my eyes to use those returning photons. HID beam profiles are much more useful to elevated / vehicle-mounted operators (which I'm not. :thumbsup: ) 

The Olight puts the right *proportion *of light downrange vs at my feet, and is a 100% steady beam with consistent color. IMO, the HIDs are not so practically superior as the output numbers suggest. The only reasonable solution is to own both!!!:laughing:

Could y'all experts elaborate on when an "HID" becomes a "short-arc?" :naughty: Is there an arc size or characteristic, or a plasma makeup, or an emitted wavelength, at which "short-arc" starts? :thinking:


----------



## Hoop (Mar 1, 2013)

The_Driver said:


> The FireFoxes FF3 is unique and certianly can't be beaten on output and throw at the same time. The output alone will be reached at some point in the next year or two (Nitecore Tm26 ist already doing 3500 Lumens, but doesn't throw anywhere near as far). The throw has already been reached, but with a quarter of the lumens (modded lights with a single, de-domed led in a big reflector).



4k lumens is as easy to achieve as putting 5 or more xm-l2's in a single light. 7up configurations featuring 1" aspherics can be pretty compact and will put all that light down range. 3x CST-90's with one of dwdivers 13.5A linear drivers will approach 9k emitter lumens, though who knows exactly what the LUX would be in 3 phoenix PA12.4 reflectors. You could power a CLL040 with a hyperboost and 8x IMR 18350's in a very small package for 11k emitter lumens. Pushing the limits, power a CLL050 with a hyperboost and 12x IMR 18350's for 17k lumens in a mule not as large as a soda can.... Sheer output is easy to achieve in a small package, though run time and dealing with heat are considerations worth compromising output for. That said, beating the FF3 is probably as easy as feeding a 64447 19+ volts. I will be testing these very assertions quite soon though and will share the results!


----------



## get-lit (Mar 1, 2013)

CouldUseALight said:


> Love HIDs, but this has not been my experience in use, because in practice the HID does two counter-productive things:
> 1. Blinding close-in spill that washes out light coming from the far target (maybe I haven't found the right reflector yet) :thinking:


Enter the retro-reflector... turns all the spill light into beam light for zero spill and all beam.



CouldUseALight said:


> 2. Unsteady "bolting" light that changes color with flashlight movement and orientation.


Haven't experienced this, however short arc HID has little room for arc wander and flutter, and the high end lamps have specially designed anodes and cathodes to pretty much eliminate wander and flutter except at end of lamp life.



CouldUseALight said:


> Could y'all experts elaborate on when an "HID" becomes a "short-arc?" :naughty: Is there an arc size or characteristic, or a plasma makeup, or an emitted wavelength, at which "short-arc" starts? :thinking:



It's basically a relation of arc gap to lumen output. I find the best way to qualify a lamp as short arc is to relate it's gap/output ratio to that of the Osram XBO lamps.

*EDIT:* There are relatively few HID short arcs outside the Xenon variants and all are very expensive, with the exception of P-VIP projector type lamps. There are also short arc lamps for lithography and also custom lamp solutions. An excellent "middle of the road" short arc lamp with excellent life, lower cost, great output, very small size, easy mounting, and excellent color temp, CRI, and stability due to higher operating temp capability (500C at the lamp seals) is the newly developed short arc version of the Phillips Gold MSR lamps, which only some are marketed as short arc but don't quite measure up to the gap/output ratio of the others mentioned. Still, all of it's benefits would make for an excellent high power portable light solution. This is likely what I would have chosen had I not opted for a custom solution.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 1, 2013)

Four SST-90 LED's on a copper heatsink shoved into the head of a 6D MagLite. 26650's. 8,000+ Lumens.

LED's are easily scalable.

LED wins.

End Of Thread.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 2, 2013)

Too bad it's end of thread because when I was wondering how a heat sink is going to keep 10,000 degrees of luminous intensity from vaporizing a LED. Four LEDs is four times the luminance area in the aperture without increasing source luminous intensity, so that's getting into flood territory without even getting 10% there in output.

If not already, LED will soon "win" over smaller non short arc HID like the ones the OP mentioned, but it would help to differentiate what we're comparing when simply saying LED wins, unless you believe 8,000 floody lumens "win" over 70,000 to 140,000 tightly collimated lumens from the same aperture.

EDIT: There should be two forum categories for the two types of HID to distinguish them because their luminous intensities have nothing in common and we'll keep hearing a truck beats a lambo because it beats a pinto.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 2, 2013)

get-lit said:


> Ah shucks, it's really too bad it's end of thread because when I was wondering how a copper heat sink is going to help any LED support 10,000 degrees of luminous intensity in the least. You've just created four times the luminance area without increasing source luminous intensity and you've divided the average source to reflector surface distance by four, so you're getting into flood territory without even getting 10% there in output.
> 
> Before the thread was over, I was hoping you would have explained how 8,000 floody lumens "win" over 140,000, or even just 70,000 tightly collimated lumens from the same aperture but I guess it's too late now for me to ever understand this.



Custom heatsink [CHECK]
Aspheric lens? [CHECK]

Keeping the aperture size relative, four dedomed SST-90 LED's projecting 8,000 lumens can out throw a PH50.

Getting a bit too hot? Alright, we'll step it down after a minute or so to perhaps, 4,000lumens - still keeping up with the PH40.

HID? Right. You have to shut it off.


----------



## Hoop (Mar 2, 2013)

Realistically, to employ multiple high wattage leds, active cooling must be utilized because the required passive heatsink would have to be quite large, and li-ion batteries should not be operated above 60*C / 140*F. If the light body is approaching too hot to hold, you are nearing the point where you need to turn it off or reduce output significantly. Active cooling can be put into compact designs however, and this is the future of high output led flashlights. Mark my words.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 2, 2013)

ledmitter, you are correct, I revised my post because this thread got into a LED vs HID discussion and there's two types of HID... the type the OP was referring to and the super class HID.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 2, 2013)

Hoop said:


> Realistically, to employ multiple high wattage leds, active cooling must be utilized because the required passive heatsink would have to be quite large, and li-ion batteries should not be operated above 60*C / 140*F. If the light body is approaching too hot to hold, you are nearing the point where you need to turn it off or reduce output significantly. Active cooling can be put into compact designs however, and this is the future of high output led flashlights. Mark my words.



Something like this 8,600 lumen quad SST-90 bike light comes to mind:

















http://forums.mtbr.com/lights-diy-do-yourself/wtf-quad-sst-90-ssr-90-light-8-600-lumens-743211.html

Also someone on here built a multiple SST-90 handheld "stadium light" that output an obscene amount of light. Forgot where that thread was. But it gives a peek at the capability.

Sooner or later someone is going to stick an aspheric lens onto one of these.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 2, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> Also someone on here built a multiple SST-90 handheld "stadium light" that output an obscene amount of light. Forgot where that thread was. But it gives a peek at the capability.



And here it is:

8X SST-90 18,000Lumens.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...s-Led-Flashlight-18-000-lumens-more-beamshots














<-- :laughing:


----------



## Hoop (Mar 2, 2013)

Yes the bike light is a good example of a small but actively cooled design, although 4x SST-90's in that configuration is less than ideal for a bike light because the near field illumination is blindingly bright, which in turn makes it harder to see the far field, and strains the eyes. Optimally a bike light provides even illumination from near to far, similar to car headlights. To achieve this, most of the lumens need to be aimed down field because the near field does not require nearly as many to light it at similar levels to the far field.

The octo sst-90 light is cool, although it's certainly a wow light.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 3, 2013)

My night rides are around 8 hours at a time and I soon found that I preferred little to no near field light and just enough far field light to see but not too bright because too much light takes away from the ambiance of the natural setting. All my friends that ride with me prefer this too.


----------



## Kaban (Mar 3, 2013)

How much do you guys think it will cost when it comes out?


----------



## CouldUseALight (Mar 3, 2013)

Thank you so much for your informative post!! :bow: Why do you specify the Osram XBOs as the "Typical" short-arcs? Not disputing, just curious..... 



get-lit said:


> Enter the retro-reflector... turns all the spill light into beam light for zero spill and all beam. ...
> Haven't experienced this, however short arc HID has little room for arc wander and flutter, and the high end lamps have specially designed anodes and cathodes to pretty much eliminate wander and flutter except at end of lamp life.



Whatever happened to retro-reflectors? I can't find a current HID application....seems these were the rage before I fell off the wagon....but no one seems to offer a competitive retro-flector today, in HID or LED?

I'm totally a HID plebian, also.....my experience is limited to "low-end" long-arcs like the FF3 and my eBay HID....Polarions may not suffer "bolting" light. 



ledmitter_nli said:


> <-- :laughing:



Holy crap I'm gonna fall out of my chair...
...hard to go from those "Fat Star" photos ("here it is compared to a DX P7, or my car headlights" LOLOLOL) to a sober discussion of near-field illumination, LOL!


----------



## get-lit (Mar 4, 2013)

Osram XBO are great for comparing super class HID lamps for short arc effectiveness because there's so many XBO output variations to compare with and XBO specs are so easy to find. BTW this thread is not related to super class HID and should probably stay on topic.


----------



## Patriot (Mar 8, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> Four SST-90 LED's on a copper heatsink shoved into the head of a 6D MagLite. 26650's. 8,000+ Lumens.
> 
> LED's are easily scalable.
> 
> ...





Sometimes the generalizations and lack of TRUE comparisons that I see posted on CPF are really comical. By comparison, I'm talking about a very simple formula; equal lumen output, equal throw and equal run-time given the same power source (by default controlling relative size). You've posted links for two mega flood lights, one of them that runs for 5-7 minutes on 8 x 18650's and top it off with "LED wins." It seems that you're either joking with us or haven't actually read some of the careful, deliberate thinking that others have invested into the discussion. By the way, it has escaped no one that LED's are scalable. It's axiomatically grated throughout prior discussion which addresses that specifically.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 9, 2013)

Patriot said:


> Sometimes the generalizations and lack of TRUE comparisons that I see posted on CPF are really comical. By comparison, I'm talking about a very simple formula; equal lumen output, equal throw and equal run-time given the same power source (by default controlling relative size). You've posted links for two mega flood lights, one of them that runs for 5-7 minutes on 8 x 18650's and top it off with "LED wins." It seems that you're either joking with us or haven't actually read some of the careful, deliberate thinking that others have invested into the discussion. By the way, it has escaped no one that LED's are scalable. It's axiomatically grated throughout prior discussion which addresses that specifically.



5 XML's in a custom 5 sided array and quad reflector:

Pics from TurboBB
http://razzi.me/photos/search/5 x XM-L/list?page=5





















From spark001's website:

Features
LED: 5*CREE XML cool white T6 or neutral white T5
Output and Runtime
5 modes
Max: 3500lm/1.3hours
Med2: 1800lm/2.6 hours
Med1: 500lm/14 hours
Low: 80lm/100 hours
Strobe
Battery
6* 18650 rechargeable Li-on battery or 12*CR123.

I'm wondering if the Spark SP6 emitter stalk above was updated to XM-L2's and driven a little harder, could it match the Polarion PF50 in throw and output?

It would certainly answer some of your other questions.

TurboBB's review: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...P6-Review-(5-x-XM-L-T6-6-x-18650-12-x-CR123A)

:devil:


----------



## get-lit (Mar 9, 2013)

Well thought out engineering for 5 times the light output and probably a bit more Lux compared to a single emitter with the same aperture, but not likely by a significant multiple in Lux because the effective aperture is fractionalized among the four emitters and the fifth emitter is for flood. I'm thinking the fractionalized reflector would have the same net effect as increasing the source area by four which boosts lumen output but not Lux output for the same aperture since source intensity remains the same per luminance area. The angled emitters have an added benefit of taking better advantage of the emitter's peak intensity of their luminance profile. The review doesn't compare Lux to a single emitter with equivalent aperture, but I'd put a quick rough guess at possibly twice the Lux considering the benefit of the better utilization of the luminance profile with angled emitters as well as some overlapping of their flood that can be seen by the flood's clover shape.


----------



## Patriot (Mar 9, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> 5 XML's in a custom 5 sided array and quad reflector:
> 
> Pics from TurboBB
> http://razzi.me/photos/search/5 x XM-L/list?page=5
> ...





Well, I certainly appreciate your determination Ledmitter, but as you might imagine, dozens of larger format LED's have been compared in some way to HID over the past 3 years or so. The most "comparable" existing LED light to a PH40/50 isn't this one, however. It's the previously, in this thread mentioned, Olight X6 which is a 6 x XM-L with 6 decently sized reflectors. It's produces around 4600L for about 48 minutes providing about 100-130k lux, which is substantially more than the light you've referenced at 73K lux. As an example to the unimpressiveness of this throw value from a 5 x XM-L, I recently tested the AA powered Nitecore EA8 at 68K lux! By comparison, the PH40/PH50 and NightReaper are about 400-500K lux measured at 50-100 meters. Due the the scale-ability that you've echoed, multiple LED's can bridge the lumen gap but not the throw mark. If a large quantity of emitters are combined to challenge the throw of some current 75mm reflectored HIDs, the run-time drops to a ridiculous level while the thermal values escalate to unsustainable highs. 

If you remember, this off topic discussion was sparked by the assertion that "challenging HID's (with LED's) really isn't difficult anymore." As you can see, it really depends on what is meant by "challenging" and "not that difficult." Both can be subjective terms but in reality HID isn't quite being challenged, par for par, and it really IS sort of difficult, if not presently impossible, to challenge or meet HID spec for spec with LED. I don't make this claim as a fan boy for HID even though I have a Polarion signature. If you look at my posts and reviews, I'm far more interested in LED technology as of late and it's where my true enthusiasm is at right now. I would like nothing better than to see the next super LED make my Polarion an 'also ran' but I have to be honest about it, not making whimsical claims about the true capabilities in the meantime.

At this present time, I think a light like the X6, using 6 x XM-L2s with three slightly larger SMOOTH reflectors and 3 large aspherics taking the place of the other three reflectors, perhaps slightly over driven, could potentially reach 250-300K lux. This would be close enough for me to call it "challenging" for a 3-4" reflectored HID, while still providing a beam profile that's useful for the things that HID is useful for. If the SBT-70 was producing 4500L instead of 1200-1400L we'd be at the level of HID with a single LED, BUT...the technology is still several years away. 

Certainly, you could search out LED lights at the rate one per week thus keeping me busy in explanation for the next year. Instead, you've got the formula so perhaps you could research the specifications of each light yourself while comparing "Equal lumen output, equal throw and equal run-time given the same power source (by default controlling relative size)." I would loosely throw in similar beam profile. In short, you wont find a LED light that yet compares spec to spec but you'll probably learn a lot and like me, enjoy the anticipation of the next LED technology leap.


----------



## Patriot (Mar 9, 2013)

get-lit said:


> The review doesn't compare Lux to a single emitter with equivalent aperture, but I'd put a quick rough guess at possibly twice the Lux considering the benefit of the better utilization of the luminance profile with angled emitters as well as some overlapping of their flood that can be seen by the flood's clover shape.



I would have initially guessed the same as you did however, it's just the opposite. A single centered XM-L emitter mated to an even smaller aperture is reaching 275K lux in Michael's modified TN31s. The articulated, peddled reflector and miniature center reflector in the sp6 is actually a hindrance to throw at 73K lux.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 9, 2013)

Yes I know, let's just say it was a guess with MUCH margin of error and ebbing on the positive side in consideration of the creative design before actual measurements are known.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 10, 2013)

Patriot said:


> Well, I certainly appreciate your determination Ledmitter, but as you might imagine, dozens of larger format LED's have been compared in some way to HID over the past 3 years or so. The most "comparable" existing LED light to a PH40/50 isn't this one, however. It's the previously, in this thread mentioned, Olight X6 which is a 6 x XM-L with 6 decently sized reflectors. It's produces around 4600L for about 48 minutes providing about 100-130k lux, which is substantially more than the light you've referenced at 73K lux. As an example to the unimpressiveness of this throw value from a 5 x XM-L, I recently tested the AA powered Nitecore EA8 at 68K lux! By comparison, the PH40/PH50 and NightReaper are about 400-500K lux measured at 50-100 meters. Due the the scale-ability that you've echoed, multiple LED's can bridge the lumen gap but not the throw mark. If a large quantity of emitters are combined to challenge the throw of some current 75mm reflectored HIDs, the run-time drops to a ridiculous level while the thermal values escalate to unsustainable highs.
> 
> If you remember, this off topic discussion was sparked by the assertion that "challenging HID's (with LED's) really isn't difficult anymore." As you can see, it really depends on what is meant by "challenging" and "not that difficult." Both can be subjective terms but in reality HID isn't quite being challenged, par for par, and it really IS sort of difficult, if not presently impossible, to challenge or meet HID spec for spec with LED. I don't make this claim as a fan boy for HID even though I have a Polarion signature. If you look at my posts and reviews, I'm far more interested in LED technology as of late and it's where my true enthusiasm is at right now. I would like nothing better than to see the next super LED make my Polarion an 'also ran' but I have to be honest about it, not making whimsical claims about the true capabilities in the meantime.
> 
> ...



"If the SBT-70 was producing 4500L instead of 1200-1400L we'd be at the level of HID with a single LED, BUT...the technology is still several years away."

^^^ Or perhaps 9 months away... That is, if SureFire delivers on its 8 die, 5,000 lumen emitter design (currently working). That was the original point of this thread.


----------



## Lurveleven (Mar 11, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> "If the SBT-70 was producing 4500L instead of 1200-1400L we'd be at the level of HID with a single LED, BUT...the technology is still several years away."
> 
> ^^^ Or perhaps 9 months away... That is, if SureFire delivers on its 8 die, 5,000 lumen emitter design (currently working). That was the original point of this thread.



Give it up, SureFire itself has said that it will be floody, it will only have 68000 lux.


----------



## TEEJ (Mar 11, 2013)

We have a lot of apples and oranges in this thread...max output custom lights vs OEM off the shelf lights, and cherry picking of what specs to compare to make points.

There are OEM HID's that can throw a beam for MILES, and handheld ones that can throw ~ a mile.

There are a few CUSTOM LED's that can throw for ~ a mile, but, with no flood, and, for several hundred meters WITH flood.


As far as throw alone goes, HID's win, as a category, as they can simply be more easily made to throw due to the a fore mentioned surface brightness. For any give reflector size, the smaller and brighter emission source has a better chance of maximizing throw, just like it does for LEDs, with a smaller die generally being better able to throw than a larger one, all else being equal.

As far as flood, LEDs have a shot here, as that's more about lumens, and you can more easily throw a bunch of LEDs together and get the cumulative lumen output where you want it. As far as OEM LED set ups, if it LOOKS like a flashlight, the OEM lumens for a HH HID and a HH LED light can be similar. If its less flashlight like OEM, such as the 47's X18 or Olight X6 etc, then the lumen output can be better than the HH HID.


When you get custom...again, the bar goes up for BOTH (A rising tide lifts all ships...), as custom set-ups can be made to do almost anything...but, the bar moves for both, so either can surpass the OEM versions of either...so the TOP custom HID's can STILL out throw the TOP custom LEDs, and, the custom HIDs can still out flood the custom LEDs, but, again, the flood difference is IMHO, less distinct than for throw.


Now, if we take run time and power requirements, etc, into account, the LEDs start to come into their own, as for the output, they can be more efficient, and run longer on a charge, etc. 

When we do search operations, etc, we use both types of light, because they each have advantages and disadvantages. 


Its comparing Jeeps and Ferraris, if there's a race, you only know which will win if you also know what the terrain looks like.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 11, 2013)

Spot on across the board.

LED and HID are the same in how they produce light, but though solid state material versus gas, with a few simple advantages.

Both are just as efficient at producing output, but LED's solid state materials have more "tuning" flexibility than gaseous HID, which give LED the ability to produce just the needed color band, such as visible light without UV and IR light, making LED more efficient for a given color band. For instance, automotive HID lamps approach 100 lumens/watt of white light along with UV and IR output, while LED can do around 130 lumens/watt white light output without producing UV and IR. This is an advantage for LED.

The other advantage for LED is it can produce instant output, since it's solid state material doesn't have to change from solid to gas like HID requires during startup.

And then of course there's luminous intensity which is the limiting factor for LED, giving the advantage to HID.

Since the only advantage for HID is luminous intensity, LED will likely surpass HID in all applications except throw, and LED will likely make all of the less intensive HID lamps out there completely obsolete (sulfur lamps, low pressure sodium, etc.)


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 11, 2013)

I can go along with the above.  My presupposition was originally based on SureFire's description from their Annihilator lineup video at the beginning.

Anyway I think one more generational (milestone leap) in LED output capability may still be forthcoming within the next few years. Such to the extent that "HID" class lighting can 'almost' be achieved. It be pretty cool to have an SR95 outputting just 50% more lumens alone. And once this is achieved, Polarion lights in particular will be rendered obsolete from an value proposition standpoint.

Just my opinion.


----------



## one2tim (Mar 11, 2013)

I know ill defently spend 198$ on the FF4 next months insteed of a +1000$ 4000lumen flood light from surefire. The experience of firing up my FF3 beats all the led lights ive ever had.
PS. topic says 5000lumen but video the guy says 5000lumen and tag sign says 4000lumen. also the arc3 tag says 2500lumen but guy says 4000 lumen...really confusing.


----------



## Patriot (Mar 11, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> It be pretty cool to have an SR95 outputting just 50% more lumens alone. And once this is achieved, Polarion lights in particular will be rendered obsolete from an value proposition standpoint.
> 
> Just my opinion.



But again you have to inject a subjective scale, admittedly "your opinion." Opinions are nifty but they still have to be based off of existing information. If we could wave a magic wand and give the SR95 another 50% luminous flux, which would be a massive revolution for an SST-90, you'd have.....3000L @ 130-140K lux VS. a "Polarion" (you're brand of choice, there are others btw) at 4500L at 500K lux. I can't see where that's close or understand why that increase difference in the pseudo SR95 would suddenly make HID obsolete from a value standpoint as compared to before. Everyone here has attempted to help explain the pro's and con's of each system but you keep reverting to suggestions about what's going to become obsolete. I don't know what else to tell ya but hopefully you're learning something from what the other knowledgeable members have posted.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 12, 2013)

Patriot said:


> But again you have to inject a subjective scale, admittedly "your opinion." Opinions are nifty but they still have to be based off of existing information. If we could wave a magic wand and give the SR95 another 50% luminous flux, which would be a massive revolution for an SST-90, you'd have.....3000L @ 130-140K lux VS. a "Polarion" (you're brand of choice, there are others btw) at 4500L at 500K lux. I can't see where that's close or understand why that increase difference in the pseudo SR95 would suddenly make HID obsolete from a value standpoint as compared to before. Everyone here has attempted to help explain the pro's and con's of each system but you keep reverting to suggestions about what's going to become obsolete. I don't know what else to tell ya but hopefully you're learning something from what the other knowledgeable members have posted.



A high output LED light that can achieve say 3/4 the luminous output of a Polarion HID and throw to 550 yards (as far as the naked eye can see) will accomplish 90% of the illumination ground work that a Polarion can. Cleaner beam, multiple output levels, better heat management, and cost about $1,800.00 less -- to-boot. So based on those merits, it would make a much more compelling option for the buyer, hence "the value proposition" I spoke of.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 12, 2013)

Does anyone know more about the Polarion lamp? Specifically, the arc gap and initial lumen output at the lamp, lamp hours? Maybe a close up pic of the lamp? This would help determine if it's surface brightness is too intense for LED to match or not.


----------



## BVH (Mar 12, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> A high output LED light that can achieve say 3/4 the luminous output of a Polarion HID and throw to 550 yards (as far as the naked eye can see) will accomplish 90% of the illumination ground work that a Polarion can. Cleaner beam, multiple output levels, better heat management, and cost about $1,800.00 less -- to-boot. So based on those merits, it would make a much more compelling option for the buyer, hence "the value proposition" I spoke of.



Everything you've said above is hypothetical so its just useless text. There is no single LED that can produce 3/4 the luminous output of the Polarion. The naked eye can clearly see further than 550 Yards. You're just blindfolding yourself and throwing darts with your "90% of the illumination ground work" phrase. Cleaner beam? What the heck does that mean. Do I need to get out my car washing equipment to clean my HID beams? Better heat management - you've got to be joking! And again, you're still blindfolded and throwing darts at "$1,800". "So based on those (unobtainum) merits". Those merits don't exist. "Compelling option for the buyer" - Just what a serious buyer is looking for - "Vaporware".


----------



## Illum (Mar 12, 2013)

BVH said:


> Everything you've said above is hypothetical so its just useless text.



hehe... little is he aware that you've work with enough xenon short arcs to know the difference


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 12, 2013)

BVH said:


> Everything you've said above is hypothetical so its just useless text. There is no single LED that can produce 3/4 the luminous output of the Polarion. The naked eye can clearly see further than 550 Yards. You're just blindfolding yourself and throwing darts with your "90% of the illumination ground work" phrase. Cleaner beam? What the heck does that mean. Do I need to get out my car washing equipment to clean my HID beams? Better heat management - you've got to be joking! And again, you're still blindfolded and throwing darts at "$1,800". "So based on those (unobtainum) merits". Those merits don't exist. "Compelling option for the buyer" - Just what a serious buyer is looking for - "Vaporware".



Dude. I can pick up a FireFox and give $1,800.00 worth of lumens a hell of a run for its $ figure.

Polarions are overpriced. You have to be a retard to pay full retail for one.


----------



## BVH (Mar 12, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> Dude. I can pick up a FireFox and give $1,800.00 worth of lumens a hell of a run for its $ figure.
> 
> Polarions are overpriced. You have to be a retard to pay full retail for one.



"Dude" - Is that the entire message you've been subtly trying to convey through all of your posts - that Polarions are overpriced? Fine, no one's forcing you to buy one.


----------



## Patriot (Mar 12, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> Dude. I can pick up a FireFox and give $1,800.00 worth of lumens a hell of a run for its $ figure.
> 
> Polarions are overpriced. You have to be a retard to pay full retail for one.




Regardless of the precise measurement your flashlight ignorance, it's obvious at this point that you're just trolling other comments in order to elicit heated reactions from other initially well meaning people. No one is that irrational without some level of intent. You ought to be embarrassed to have taken advantage of the helpful patience that members have extended and then turn it into a game of smacktard for your own exultation.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 13, 2013)

Look, let's just wait for the SureFire Annihilator to be released then we'll see where the cards fall.


----------



## Patriot (Mar 13, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> Look, let's just wait for the SureFire Annihilator to be released then we'll see where the cards fall.




Remember what Lurveleven already told you...


> Lurveleven
> Give it up, SureFire itself has said that it will be floody, it will only have 68000 lux.



There are Multi-LED lights right now matching or exceeding the specifications of the Surefire Annihilator. Fenix just supplied a 4 x XM-L that produces 3600L and 130K lux. The Olight X6 exceeds the Annihilator in both lumen output and with nearly double the throw. Three times mentioned by me now and still the reality makes no imprint on you.

Then you curse the cost of a Polarion while evidently oblivious to the price realities of Surefire products. As stated earlier there's no rational or consistency behind your line of thinking, just further shooting from the hip. (that means inaccurate)


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 13, 2013)

Patriot said:


> Remember what Lurveleven already told you...
> 
> 
> There are Multi-LED lights right now matching or exceeding the specifications of the Surefire Annihilator. Fenix just supplied a 4 x XM-L that produces 3600L and 130K lux. The Olight X6 exceeds the Annihilator in both lumen output and with nearly double the throw. Three times mentioned by me now and still the reality makes no imprint on you.
> ...



I'd reiterate this threads topic is "Surefire Annihilator vs Polarion PH40." So I'm really piggy backing SureFire's message where they've inferred the Annihilator is going to be some sort of LED answer to the HID.

I'd also be interested in seeing Lureleven cite his "68000 lux" source.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 13, 2013)

And as a corollary, I'll place this right here:

“Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.” – _Popular Mechanics_ magazine, 1949.


----------



## Patriot (Mar 13, 2013)

I just realized I've become a perpetuation to the active existence of this thread. I'm opting out and going back to the adult table. 
Have fun! :wave:


----------



## get-lit (Mar 13, 2013)

Took ya a while to realize that but at least it's been fun reading along. He's posting unrealistic hypotheticals without listening to reason in the HID section, maybe to get you riled so that he can say I told you so when his expectations come to light, which is impossible of course. I think he's tuning out because he's just hopeful after hearing a company say the LED answer to the HID. We all are hopeful and it's been mentioned here that we'd be all for some new miracle, but we acknowledge the fundamental limitations of LED that can't be changed unless we one day wake up in a whole new universe where gas turns to solid state with increased temp.

On a more serious side regarding throw, since LED is ultimately limited in luminous intensity, I think any real possibility for improvement would be with a new HID anode/cathode material that can handle higher temps, or a new gas mixture that could better isolate the output wavelengths and improve efficiency, or methods or materials to speed up ignition without affecting efficiency. Keep in mind, short arc HID literally doubled in efficiency and wavelength isolation in just the past few years. With 70 years of evolution, incredible new lamps have sprung up in just the past five years, and there's still some room for improvement.

EDIT: Keep in mind laser will eventually have good light output and cost will come down.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 13, 2013)

Fact A) The Polarion PH40 is outputting 4,200 lamp lumens.
Fact B) The SST-90 (P Bin) is outputting 2850 LED lumens in my EagleTac MX25L2. With the Turbo Head the light throws out 650+ yards. Center lux 93,400 all without a substantial increase in reflector size.

It isn't too farfetched to see an LED that's a bit larger than the SST-90 outputting in excess of 4,000 lumens and being focused into a tighter throwy beam with adequate spill.

4,200 lumens isn't too far off from 2,850.

Again lets wait and see what the Annihilator can do. I'm not the one being unreasonable here. We know this is the "HID House" so I get it.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 13, 2013)

get-lit said:


> Took ya a while to realize that but at least it's been fun reading along. He's posting unrealistic hypotheticals without listening to reason in the HID section, maybe to get you riled so that he can say I told you so when his expectations come to light, which is impossible of course. I think he's tuning out because he's just hopeful after hearing a company say the LED answer to the HID. We all are hopeful and it's been mentioned here that we'd be all for some new miracle, but we acknowledge the fundamental limitations of LED that can't be changed unless we one day wake up in a whole new universe where gas turns to solid state with increased temp.
> 
> On a more serious side regarding throw, since LED is ultimately limited in luminous intensity, I think any real possibility for improvement would be with a new HID anode/cathode material that can handle higher temps, or a new gas mixture that could better isolate the output wavelengths and improve efficiency, or methods or materials to speed up ignition without affecting efficiency. Keep in mind, short arc HID literally doubled in efficiency and wavelength isolation in just the past few years. With 70 years of evolution, incredible new lamps have sprung up in just the past five years, and there's still some room for improvement.
> 
> EDIT: Keep in mind laser will eventually have good light output and cost will come down.



The LED might be limited in luminous intensity, but it isn't limited in surface area.

Once the phosphors are ironed out it would be interesting to see a lollipop shaped LED emitter with full spherical output.

Who knows? :devil:


----------



## get-lit (Mar 13, 2013)

It's not clear what aspect you're referring to, but the claim "The LED answer to the HID" implies to me we're talking about throw, because that's the only advantage HID has over LED.

If we're talking throw, only luminous intensity increases throw. For a given lumen output, increased surface area decreases luminous intensity and throw. For a given luminous intensity, increased surface area increases beam diameter with the same throw. Without increasing luminous intensity for a given reflector size, throw will not increase.

If you're not talking about throw, it's a moot point because LED already bests HID in areas other than throw. In that case, the claim "The LED answer to the HID" is pointless.

Please, before you continue, please let us know whether you are comparing throw or not. That way we know if there's even anything we can help with.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 13, 2013)

get-lit said:


> It's not clear what aspect you're referring to, but the claim "The LED answer to the HID" implies to me we're talking about throw, because that's the only advantage HID has over LED.
> 
> If we're talking throw, only luminous intensity increases throw. For a given lumen output, increased surface area decreases luminous intensity and throw. For a given luminous intensity, increased surface area increases beam diameter with the same throw. Without increasing luminous intensity for a given reflector size, throw will not increase.
> 
> ...



I'm talking about both. Optics increases throw as well. Ever heard of the DEFT?

Anyway, I could use some help understanding why increased surface area decreases luminous intensity and throw as it relates to LED. *o* VS *O* where *O* is emitting the same intensity of lumens per surface area as *o*.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 13, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> I'm talking about both. Optics increases throw as well. Ever heard of the DEFT?



I'm probably the last one here with any patience remaining to help, and I'm about to head back to the adult table too. I'm trying very hard to not add you to my complete waste of time list. Read the responses you get here very carefully because you keep missing pieces of the puzzle. Your next response will likely confirm my growing suspicion that you're doing this intentionally to keep us going in circles. I'm not posting here to prove anything or to make a point, just to help you understand. No one whom has responded here has any need to prove anything. If you are just having difficulty understanding, you should have been much more considerate instead of asserting they're all wrong, because I can assure you that you will regret it once it all finally makes sense to you.

Also, there is no point in trying to help with anything other than throw because it's already been thoroughly understood that throw is the only advantage HID has over LED, which is the only logical reasoning for the claim "The LED answer to the HID".

Please re-read my post, all of them. I specifically isolate throw as a relation of luminous intensity and optic size. The very reason I say "for a given reflector size" is to isolate luminous intensity as the primary factor among LED and HID that determines throw.




ledmitter_nli said:


> Anyway, I could use some help understanding why increased surface area decreases luminous intensity and throw as it relates to LED. *o* VS *O* where *O* is emitting the same intensity of lumens per surface area as *o*.



Please re-read my post. I did not say increased surface area decreases luminous intensity and throw when emitting the same intensity. That's like saying 2-1=2. I said...

1. For a "given lumen output", increased surface area decreases luminous intensity and throw. This is because when a given lumen output is divided among greater surface area, there is less lumen per area, or less luminous intensity.

2. For a "given luminous intensity", increased surface area increases beam diameter with the same throw. In this case, throw is the same because luminous intensity does not increase, it's just more lumen over a greater area of the same luminous intensity, making the beam just as bright but with larger diameter.

*EDIT...*



ledmitter_nli said:


> It isn't too farfetched to see an LED that's a bit larger than the SST-90 outputting in excess of 4,000 lumens and being focused into a tighter throwy beam with adequate spill.



Maybe this will help put it into perspective for you. The SST-90 emitter is 3mm x 3mm? HID can place 150,000 lumen into an area that big, with 37.5 times the luminous intensity you're hoping for. Not only that, HID can concentrate the majority of that light into a pin point spot within that area, so now you're talking 100's of times the luminous intensity. If you cram that much light into such a small area, there is no known solid state material in the universe that will not turn to vapor. With my project, I'm currently having a difficult time placing a material capable of 3567°F as far as .87" from the source without vaporizing, even with forced air cooling. This hasn't been fun and will cost me at least $3200 to solve this alone.


----------



## The_Driver (Mar 13, 2013)

get-lit said:


> Does anyone know more about the Polarion lamp? Specifically, the arc gap and initial lumen output at the lamp, lamp hours? Maybe a close up pic of the lamp? This would help determine if it's surface brightness is too intense for LED to match or not.



First of all I think it's very sad that this thread has gone the way it has . I thought the discussion with Patriot36 and you was very interesting. 

To answer your question: it's an Osram Xenarc bulb. You should be able to find some data on it. 

A member of the German TLF forum has done a very nice comparison of the luminance of the different leds and hid bulbs currently available. See here. "Dome?" means if the led still has its dome lens or not. De-Doming allows for huge increases in luminance. Please note that the Cree LEDs in the comparison are all heavily over-driven and mounted on copper pcbs for maximum performance. The SBT-70 and SBT-90 figures are from the stock Olight flashlights. The luminance 

The Osram Xenarcs have a luminance of around 65 cd/mm^2 @35W. Thats really not that much.
The Polarions are so good because they overdrive the bulb and have a large reflector of extremely high quality.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 13, 2013)

get-lit said:


> I'm probably the last one here with any patience remaining to help, and I'm about to head back to the adult table too. I'm trying very hard to not add you to my complete waste of time list. Read the responses you get here very carefully because you keep missing pieces of the puzzle. Your next response will likely confirm my growing suspicion that you're doing this intentionally to keep us going in circles. I'm not posting here to prove anything or to make a point, just to help you understand. No one whom has responded here has any need to prove anything. If you are just having difficulty understanding, you should have been much more considerate instead of asserting they're all wrong, because I can assure you that you will regret it once it all finally makes sense to you.
> 
> Also, there is no point in trying to help with anything other than throw because it's already been thoroughly understood that throw is the only advantage HID has over LED, which is the only logical reasoning for the claim "The LED answer to the HID".
> 
> ...



OK. Understood. "For a given luminous intensity" - referring to the net intensity of the source irrespective of surface area or size.

Going back to what I wrote above:

Me: "The LED might be limited in luminous intensity, but it isn't limited in surface area."
You: "For a given luminous intensity, increased surface area increases beam diameter with the same throw. Without increasing luminous intensity for a given reflector size, throw will not increase."

Thinking about this, I should have wrote, "The LED might be limited in luminous intensity, but it isn't limited in surface area compounding that intensity."

I'm not arguing if a one-thousand WATT HID lamp outputting 150K lumens has an SST-90 driven on two 3.7 volt batteries beat or not. Of course it will. I'm arguing the output of the PH40 (specifically rated as it is) can be matched by a single emitter design and upcoming generation of phosphors. SureFire is working on a new proprietary die design that might meet that challenge early on. Granted it is speculative since we don't have information about the optics being used. Maybe they're going to use a TIR refracting lens. Or maybe it's something we haven't seen utilized before. But I have no doubts that *this will* happen.

Now, as for the PH50...? Now I'd have doubts about that.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 13, 2013)

The_Driver said:


> First of all I think it's very sad that this thread has gone the way it has . I thought the discussion with Patriot36 and you was very interesting.
> 
> To answer your question: it's an Osram Xenarc bulb. You should be able to find some data on it.
> 
> ...



What's sad is, the 'limitations-of-LED' thinking going on here is just as two dimensional and flat as today's flat LED die's themselves. 

Forget about De-Doming. Someone or some company should organize a research group and get going on that ball of deposited phosphorous in a lollipop design I mentioned above. Output in three dimensions and 360 degrees. Stick it into a usurped Polarion reflector and start measuring results. I'm sure matching the same 4,000 lumens intensity from a pea sized phosphorous ball can get the same kind of throw.







Edit: And that's my last word on this topic. The cognitive dissonance imbued after considering the above plausibility must be painful. Because it's AWESOME!


----------



## get-lit (Mar 13, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> Thinking about this, I should have wrote, "The LED might be limited in luminous intensity, but it isn't limited in surface area compounding that intensity."



Intensity determines throw and surface area determines beam diameter, for a given reflector size. More surface area of the same intensity does not compound the intensity, it is still the same intensity across the luminance area. The beam just gets larger with the same intensity.




ledmitter_nli said:


> I'm not arguing if a one-thousand WATT HID lamp outputting 150K lumens has some SST-90 driving on two 3.7 volt batteries beat or not. Of course it will. I'm arguing the output of the PH40 (specifically rated as it is) can be matched by a single emitter design and upcoming generation of phosphors.



It may or may not. This depends entirely upon the how much advantage the Polarion's lamp takes of HID luminous intensity capability. There's a chance the lamp has 100 times the luminous intensity of a future SST-90 type LED, by cramming it's lumen into a space a tiny fraction of 3mm x 3mm, probably something like .5mm x .5mm or less, or the Polarion lamp might happen to not take full advantage of HID luminous intensity capability and be within luminous intensity territory of LED. There's no way to know this unless I knew more about the Polarion lamp. I asked about the Polarion lamp to be able to answer this. I could also deduce it if I knew a lux measurement at a distance and if I knew the Polarion reflector size.




ledmitter_nli said:


> What's sad is, the 'limitations-of-LED' thinking going on here is just as two dimensional and flat as today's flat LED die's themselves.



After everyone's efforts here to try and help you understand, that disrespectful comment makes it clear to me you refuse to learn due to a delusional agenda. What's sad is you refuse to accept reality. Good luck with however long it takes you to do that on your own because I doubt you're getting any more help from anyone else here. There should be a test to pass before posting here. I'm utterly astounded. This thread sucks.




ledmitter_nli said:


> And that's my last word on this topic.



Perfect. This is what happens when reality doesn't fit your agenda.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 13, 2013)

get-lit said:


> Intensity determines throw and surface area determines beam diameter, for a given reflector size. More surface area of the same intensity does not compound the intensity, it is still the same intensity across the luminance area. The beam just gets larger with the same intensity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Any thoughts about the spheroid shaped emitter? Fact is you are having a hard time reconciling the very real possibility of something like it coming into existence and changing the landscape in LEDs favor. :devil:

:wave:


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 13, 2013)

get-lit said:


> Intensity determines throw and surface area determines beam diameter, for a given reflector size. More surface area of the same intensity does not compound the intensity, it is still the same intensity across the luminance area. The beam just gets larger with the same intensity.



If you had a sheet of paper 2X2 squares and imagine it was an emitter bed magnified. If each square was emitting 100 lumens of intensity, then as a whole, the entire sheet is still emitting 100 lumens of intensity?

According to this logic (yours), multiple emitters flashlights (like the many quads) or multiple die LED's (what SureFire is working on) = wasted luminous surface area because the source, no matter how large, will never output more than its strongest link.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 13, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> Any thoughts about the spheroid shaped emitter? Fact is you are having a hard time reconciling the very real possibility of something like it coming into existence and changing the landscape in LEDs favor.



I thought you were done trolling but I'll oblige a bit further into the lunacy. It's been said by myself and others here, we don't have a HID vs LED preference. We want whatever produces best results.

The spherical shaped emitter will greatly reduce LED effectiveness by greatly enlarging it's luminance distribution profile. If LED were to have any chance at approaching anywhere near HID for throw, it would have to greatly reduce its luminance distribution profile because it can not rely on luminous intensity. The incredibly narrow luminance distribution profile of lasers is what makes them excel at throw, but their low lumen output makes them impractical for a search light, at least for now. This is where the real potential is. If I had any preference for HID, I would not keep mentioning this. Still, even when lasers will eventually attain more output, their downside is they are very dangerous being coherent light.

Funny how reality doesn't fit your fantasy so you throw in a magic sphere that actually reduces throw capability over current LEDs, but I'm already fully aware you'll refuse to understand that too.

Anyone still following this thread, be sure to get a grasp of who you're trying to reason with with before getting involved. I know I will from now on. Fortunately this doesn't happen too often.





ledmitter_nli said:


> If you had a sheet of paper 2X2 squares and imagine it was an emitter bed magnified. If each square was emitting 100 lumens of intensity, then as a whole, the entire sheet is still emitting 100 lumens of intensity?



Lumens is not an intensity, it an amount of light output. Intensity is the amount of light (lumen) within an area. Seriously how can you not get this by now?




ledmitter_nli said:


> According to this logic (yours), multiple emitters flashlights (like the many quads) or multiple die LED's (what SureFire is working on) = wasted luminous surface area because the source, no matter how large, will never output more than its strongest link.



Again you're not grasping the difference between light out put and light concentration. Multiple emitters produce more lumen output because more lumen is produced, but compared to a single emitter in the same optic size, throw is not increased because luminous intensity is not increased. This is the geometry of throw, not my logic.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 13, 2013)

get-lit said:


> I thought you were done trolling but I'll oblige a bit further into the lunacy. It's been said by myself and others here, we don't have a HID vs LED preference. We want whatever produces best results.
> 
> The spherical shaped emitter will greatly reduce LED effectiveness by greatly enlarging it's luminance distribution profile. If LED were to have any chance at approaching anywhere near HID for throw, it would have to greatly reduce its luminance distribution profile because it can not rely on luminous intensity. The incredibly narrow luminance distribution profile of lasers is what makes them excel at throw, but their low lumen output makes them impractical for a search light, at least for now. This is where the real potential is. If I had any preference for HID, I would not keep mentioning this. Still, even when lasers will eventually attain more output, their downside is they are very dangerous being coherent light.
> 
> ...



"The spherical shaped emitter will greatly reduce LED effectiveness by greatly enlarging it's luminance distribution profile."

^^^ None of this makes any sense. Seriously. If this was true then there would never be any reason for LED die's to be larger than a pin head. :laughing:

I'll just place a pic of an LED car headlight right here:






Maybe they haven't figured out the science is all wrong yet.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 13, 2013)

get-lit said:


> Lumens is not an intensity, it an amount of light output. Intensity is the amount of light (lumen) within an area. Seriously how can you not get this by now?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So are you saying a 2,000 lumen SST-90 LED (which is pea sized) swapped with a spheroid 4,000 lumen emitter (the same phosphor but double the surface area hence double the lumens and also pea sized) will throw the same? Or even less?

I'm genuinely sitting here eating a peach and trying to learn.

Surface area can be an amazingly useful feature when directed.






I wonder why fluorescent light bulb manufacturers waste surface area by coiling their tubes. They really only need to increase intensity!






:laughing:


----------



## one2tim (Mar 13, 2013)

Geezes this thread has become too stupid, this is just trolling and complete waste of helpfully people's time.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 13, 2013)

one2tim said:


> Geezes this thread has become too stupid, this is just trolling and complete waste of helpfully people's time.



Lighten up. Some fundamentals are demonstrated in those pics. There's no scientific reason why it can't be applied on a more miniature scale. It's agreed a 2 X 3.7V battery operated SST-90 light won't outshine a 1,000 WATT one-hundred-and-fifty-thousand lumen HID lamp. That I can most indubitably agree.

But as far as the PH40 is concerned, looking forward, I've got my bets.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 13, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> "The spherical shaped emitter will greatly reduce LED effectiveness by greatly enlarging it's luminance distribution profile."
> 
> ^^^ None of this makes any sense. Seriously.



How did I know you wouldn't even bother to look up luminance distribution profile. Once you do, you could then realize that an emitter putting out say 1000 lumen from a spherical luminance distribution profile will have lower luminous intensity than another same size emitter outputting the same 1000 lumen in a more narrow luminance distribution profile. As a result, the higher luminous intensity of the more narrow luminance distribution profile will throw further than the spherical luminance distribution profile, with the same lumen output and optic size.

The DEFT works well for throw with LED because it takes advantage of the Cree XR-E having the most narrow luminance distribution profile and highest luminous intensity among higher output LEDs, even while having the smallest emitter area.




ledmitter_nli said:


> If this was true then there would never be any reason for LED die's to be larger than a pin head.



More lumen output is the reason. Larger dies increase the luminance area to increase lumen output. This does nothing for throw. It makes the beam have more lumen in a larger diameter.




ledmitter_nli said:


> I'll just place a pic of an LED car headlight right here



The multi-emitter LED you posted will have less throw than just one of those emitters because each of those emitters in that multi-emitter have to be further from the focal point of the optic, making them each contribute more to flood than throw. The multi-emitter just produces more lumen output, not any more luminous intensity.





ledmitter_nli said:


> So are you saying a 2,000 lumen SST-90 LED (which is pea sized) swapped with a spheroid 4,000 lumen emitter (the same phosphor but double the surface area hence double the lumens and also pea sized) will throw the same? Or even less?



Well since you are now talking about doubling the lumen output from the same emitter area, the affect on throw will depend entirely upon the degree to which the increased luminous intensity due to the doubling of the lumen output within the same emitter area offsets the loss in luminance intensity due to the much less narrow luminance distribution profile.





ledmitter_nli said:


> I wonder why fluorescent light bulb manufacturers waste surface area by coiling their tubes. They really only need to increase intensity!



They increase surface area in order to increase lumen output, for the very reason that they can not increase luminous intensity, same for LEDs. There are some newer fluorescent tubes that have slightly improved luminous intensity by using more expensive higher amp ballasts, but not a significant leap to speak of.




ledmitter_nli said:


> Lighten up. It's agreed a 2 X 3.7V battery operated SST-90 light won't outshine a 1,000 WATT one-hundred-and-fifty-thousand lumen HID lamp. That I can most indubitably agree.
> 
> But as far as the PH40 is concerned, looking forward, I've got my bets.



I can't find any info about the PH40 lamp, everyone's posting about the PH50 and I see it produces 2 lux at 414 meters with a 3.5" reflector, but I'd still need to know the lamp lumen output in order to estimate the lamp's luminous area and luminous intensity. The light is rated at 5000 lumen, but I don't know if that is the lamp's initial output or if that is the beam output after light gather, lens reflectivity, and lens transmission losses. I did a calculation based upon both cases. With initial lamp lumen being 5000 lumen, the luminous area would be about 2.6mm x 2.6mm having 5000 lumen within it, which is definitely not taking real advantage of HID luminous intensity capability. If the 5000 lumen rating is the beam output after losses, the luminous area is about 3.5mm x 3.5mm having 9000 lumen within it. This is assuming a round luminous area, as I have no idea of the lamp's actual luminous area lobing for this lamp. These luminous intensities are much less than I have experience with and it's plausible that LED could attain these intensities **IF** their solid state materials could handle more than tripling the SST-90 output without increasing its luminous area. I would not be willing to bet on this. Even without getting into 1000W scenarios, just a little 75W short arc HID would have 6 times the candlepower as the PH50 with the same reflector, which is well beyond LED luminous intensity capability.

Still, if you're comparing LED to just to the Polarion which doesn't take full advantage of HID luminous intensity capability, LEDs would have to be capable of withstanding more than triple the luminous intensity of the SST-90.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 13, 2013)

An interesting discussion about the Polarion PH40's actual OTF lumens here:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...s-comparison&p=4037048&viewfull=1#post4037048

LED appears closer than I thought!

Some charts:

http://koti.mbnet.fi/gixer/HID/PH40_LabsphereFS2.png

Snippet:






It's like looking at someones hanging laundry. Bare whities for all to see. Stains and all.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 13, 2013)

Those are lab sphere lumen measurements lol

It truly amazes me that you're completely incapable of grasping lumen versus luminous intensity. You've got some brass balls and a the most blind ignorance I've ever seen here.

I know I'm doing a complete disservice to the forum by continuing this charade but I can't help watching how many circles this guy goes in without learning anything. It's like watching a dog chase his own tale. Sorry guys, it's just a guilty pleasure.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 13, 2013)

get-lit said:


> Those are lab sphere lumen measurements lol
> 
> It truly amazes me that you're completely incapable of grasping lumen versus luminous intensity. You've got some brass balls and a the most blind ignorance I've ever seen here.
> 
> I know I'm doing a complete disservice to the forum by continuing this charade but I can't help watching how many circles this guy goes in without learning anything. It's like watching a dog chase his own tale. Sorry guys, it's just a guilty pleasure.



If you believe so, how about telling the congregation in that thread what you think?

I also noticed this, post #52 (and the lingering silence):

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...s-comparison&p=4041715&viewfull=1#post4041715

Heh. Now it makes sense.


----------



## mvyrmnd (Mar 14, 2013)

*Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*

Ok, here's a different way of looking at it. 

My Elektrolumens ST90 - stock was about 2200 lumens, and threw a fat beam for about 500 useful meters.

I dedomed it. This effectively reduced the surface area of the emitter by removing the magnification effect of the dome. The lumen output would have dropped, possibly as low as 1700 lumens. It now throws a skinner beam for 700 useful meters.

Less lumens. Smaller surface area, but overall a higher surface brightness - more throw with all other things literally being equal.

More lumens can very well equal more throw, but higher surface brightness will ALWAYS equal more throw. Instead of a 3mm*3mm die, a HID has a hair-thin arc producing all those lumens. The surface brightness of the arc is significantly higher than a LED - and even with less lumens will nearly always throw further - assuming, of course, that it's in an appropriate reflector.

I can tell you from experience that the stock ST90 could not match a FFIII, which is shown in your other thread to be inferior to the PH40, but dedomed it's too close to call. This is verified by the half dozen other CPF'ers at the meetup that we tested this.

Your headlight example is irrelevant, as they are not designed to "throw" as these flashlights are.


----------



## Lurveleven (Mar 14, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> I'd also be interested in seeing Lureleven cite his "68000 lux" source.



Well, I didn't pull that number out of my arse, you find it in this PDF from SF.

Also look at this youtube video (from 8:30).


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 14, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*



mvyrmnd said:


> Ok, here's a different way of looking at it.
> 
> My Elektrolumens ST90 - stock was about 2200 lumens, and threw a fat beam for about 500 useful meters.
> 
> ...




Can anyone else vouch with scientific evidence or an integrating sphere that shows LED emitter lumens decrease when de-domed. Is it because of phosphor exposure to inert gasses or something chemical or is it because mvyrmnd genuinely believes optics somehow plays a direct electroluminescent role that can physically alter the emitter die's surface reaction. If no, then I think mvyrmnd needs to revisit his explanation and rethink the mechanism of light transport. If anything lumens should *increase* when light is no longer interacting with translucent material other than air.

Also the headlight example was only meant to show a correlation between emitter die real estate and lumens output.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 14, 2013)

Lurveleven said:


> Well, I didn't pull that number out of my arse, you find it in this PDF from SF.
> 
> Also look at this youtube video (from 8:30).



The video shows a brief shot of the lens. So they *are* going to be using refracting optics. Nice.






This begs the question - Which is better, the Refracting Telescope or the Reflecting Telescope?

Lens vs Concave Mirror  How about for Flashlights?


----------



## N10 (Mar 14, 2013)

i get the feeling a mod's gonna show up soon and possibly lock this down ...


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 14, 2013)

N10 said:


> i get the feeling a mod's gonna show up soon and possibly lock this down ...



Yeah probably. Ad-Hominem attacks tends to illicit moderation. Like the guy hand waving "HID has luminous intensity!" (as if intensity can't be equaled through sheer volume and subsequently concentrated) then degrading into some sort of dialogue about dog wagging...

Confoosed.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 14, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> Yeah probably. Ad-Hominem attacks tends to illicit moderation. Like the guy hand waving "HID has luminous intensity!" (as if intensity can't be equaled through sheer volume and subsequently concentrated) then degrading into some sort of dialogue about dog wagging...
> 
> Confoosed.



I actually tried to help you understand. It only became entertaining when I realized you're just trolling. Throw capability all starts from the source. Light can never be concentrated to any more than what emanates from a source.





ledmitter_nli said:


> If you believe so, how about telling the congregation in that thread what you think?
> 
> I also noticed this (and the lingering silence):
> 
> ...




Think about what? I already said exactly what I think. You're not serious about learning anything, otherwise you would have actually read my posts and understood. Instead you gloss over everything and it all flies right over your head and then say it makes no sense.

You say LED appears closer that you thought, but I'm telling you, you could have a massive wall of light but it's just going to light up the yard. It takes concentration of light into a small area to produce throw. This is exactly what luminous intensity is all about, concentrating as much light as possible into the smallest area possible. A lab sphere only measures lumen, which says nothing about luminous intensity and throw capability. You still have to relate lumen output to the area it's coming from for luminous intensity.

You could have a source with 10,000 lumen, but if it's coming from an area ten times greater than a smaller source, the smaller source would only need 1,000 lumen for the same luminous intensity. Likewise, if you want to compare the throw capability of the SST-90 to the PH-40, you can't just compare lumen output. You must compare luminous intensity, in which you relate the amount of lumen of each light source with the source's luminance area. Which again is why I ask about the PH-40 lamp. We need to know the lamp's luminance area in order to compare. If the luminance area can't be known, it can be deduced if there is a known lux measurement at a known distance within a known reflector. The lux measurement can't be a bounce measurement, that just compares relative lumen output. It must be a measurement of beam intensity, in which the measurement must be of the beam directly on the sensor.

I've read through everything I can get my hands on looking for a lux reading for the PH-40. In the link you posted, Zephrus did take such a measurement, and he also confirmed the Polarion lumen output is of the lamp, not OTF, which is very helpful to know when determining the luminance area. According to that post, the PH-40 has an initial lamp output of 4,200 lumen, and it produces 200,000 lux at 1 meter. We also know it has a 3.5" reflector aperture. This evaluates to a luminance area of 1.94 mm x 1.94 mm. In all probability, it's more elongated rather than round, but we have an area to work with. Comparing luminous intensity of the PH-40 to the SST-90 is done by comparing the PH-40's "lumen to luminance area relation" to that of the SST-90. Again, I have no preference which produces more throw, I'm all for the one that does, no matter which one it is.

The PH-40 has 4,200 lumen within a 1.94 mm diameter area, which resolves to an intensity of 4200 / (1.94/2 x 1.94/2 x 3.14) equaling 1422 lumen per square mm.

The SST-90 has 2,900 lumen within a 3.5 mm diameter area, which resolves to an intensity of 2900 / (3.5/2 x 3.5/2 x 3.14) equaling 302 lumen per square mm.

To compare these intensities, we divide the greater by the lesser to get a factor of intensity, which comes to a factor of 4.7. This means that the PH-40 lamp has 4.7 times the luminous intensity of the SST-90.

For the SST-90 to have equivalent intensity, it would need to produce 13,630 lumen, because it's emitting from an area much larger than the PH-40.

The next consideration is that LED technology will surely improve, but whether or not it can match the PH-40 luminous intensity depends upon whether or not the PH-40 luminous intensity is in the realm of too much for a LED's solid sate material to keep from becoming a liquid or gas. I still think it's plausible but highly unlikely. These intensities are on the lower end for HID, so even if this is possible, it says nothing for how LED could stack up against higher intensity HID.

Another thing to consider when anticipating nearly 5 times the intensity to find it's way here, is that LED luminous intensity has only decreased in the years since the XR-E, 5 years now? Also, with increased luminous intensity, LEDs lose efficacy. XR-E being the most intense LED is already less efficient than HID while still not having close to the luminous intensity of HID, and the LED efficiency advantage is lost right there. I also see that the PH-40 reaches full output in like a second, so the startup advantage of LED in this case is not an advantage to speak of at all. So LED really has no advantages in the case of the PH-40.

Regarding the aspheric, the luminance intensity profile of the LED lends itself better to aspherics than HID, so it will help narrow the margin.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 14, 2013)

get-lit said:


> I actually tried to help you understand. It only became entertaining when I realized you're just trolling. Throw capability all starts from the source. Light can never be concentrated to any more than what emanates from a source.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Assuming you're not trolling, I'm going to have to say you are wrong!  

No just kidding, seriously, it's a good read. I appreciate that. This is the best post in this thread because I see solid calculations being described.

Regarding "Think about what?" ---> "Those are lab sphere lumen measurements lol"

I was only carrying the message forward. I don't have a lab sphere myself, but I do know they are expensive instruments, lending a certain degree of confidence in the results posted.

Cheers


----------



## get-lit (Mar 14, 2013)

The_Driver said:


> Did you read my last post în this thread (#81)?
> The polarion lights all use the the same Osram Xenarc lamp.
> What we really need is a luminance profile of the arc form this lamp. Especially since the Polarion lights can be manually focused.
> 
> ...



I had not read your post, thanks. I look forward to checking it out. I'd like to dig into some de-doming myself but I've got enough on my plate for now.





ledmitter_nli said:


> Assuming you're not trolling, I'm going to have to say you are wrong!
> 
> No just kidding, seriously, it's a good read. I appreciate that. This is the best post in this thread because I see solid calculations being described.
> 
> ...




Really the best way to compare is to put the SST-90 LED in a 3.5" reflector and compare it's beam intensity at distance to the PH-40/PH-50. The difference in beam intensity as a factor would be the factor of light source intensity that the SST-90 needs to gain. This de-doming thing just might narrow the lumiance distibution profile enough to make it be right up there with HID for throw with an aspheric.


----------



## mvyrmnd (Mar 14, 2013)

*Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*

It's a commonly known effect that defining a SST-90 results in a lower lumen output. 

ma_sha1 explains why here:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...r-Lumen-Loss&p=3496654&viewfull=1#post3496654


In real life I'm currently dealing with a man who speaks to people very much as you do. It's a crying shame I can't deal with you in the same manner I'm going to deal with him...


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 14, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*



mvyrmnd said:


> It's a commonly known effect that defining a SST-90 results in a lower lumen output.
> 
> ma_sha1 explains why here:
> http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...r-Lumen-Loss&p=3496654&viewfull=1#post3496654
> ...



I'm open to reviewing information and if evidence indicates that I am wrong, I'm more than willing to change my mind. So thanks for that. Will read up.


----------



## mvyrmnd (Mar 14, 2013)

*Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*



ledmitter_nli said:


> I'm open to reviewing information and if evidence indicates that I am wrong, I'm more than willing to change my mind. So thanks for that. Will read up.



I'll believe it when I see it, mate.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 15, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*

Did some reading up on de-doming. This really does wonders for the luminance distribution profile which really helps makes up for the lack of luminous intensity. The Olight SR95S-U uses a domeless SBT-70. It's smaller than the SBT-90 at 3mm diameter and overdriven. The light puts out 260,000 Lux at 1 meter using a 88mm (3.5") reflector. 

These 1 meter readings only predict the best case scenario of Lux at distance, because up close the readings don't fully differentiate intensity of the spill light from that of the beam light. Still this thing is a beast and pretty much the king of LED throw...

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?350886
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...**-Olight-SR95S-UT-(Luminus-SBT-70-250-000cd)


I'm unable to find much information about the Osram Xenarc lamps, specifically the arc gap, preferably the actual luminance area. It's really unfortunate that Patriot was compelled to opt out of this conversation because he has the most helpful input as he has reviewed and measured most of these lights in person. Here's some of his *beamshots* showing the PH50 up against the SR90. I saw a video of this some time ago as well.

The Polarions actually use 72mm reflectors (2.835"), and Patriot's Lux measurements for the Polarions are up to 475 Lux at 50m for the PH40 and up to 600 Lux at 50m for the PH50. These longer distance measurements are much more revealing of a light's throw capability. The Olight SR95S-U should produce 238 Lux at 50 meters, calculated from the 260,000 Lux at 1 meter in conjunction with emitter diameter and reflector size. To keep things on a level playing field, if the PH50 were to have the larger reflector that the SR95S-U has, it should produce 860 Lux at 50 meters. So we're looking at an intensity factor of the 3.6x in favor of the PH50. The PH40 with that size reflector should produce 585 Lux at 50 meters. So here we're looking at an intensity factor of the 2.5x in favor of the PH40. LED is surely gaining ground with this de-domed configuration, at least against the less intensive HID lamps. It would be interesting to see how de-domed LEDs do with aspherics.

EDIT: A little OT but interesting, an array of seven of these Olight SR95S-U beasts could fit within the diameter of the Nightsword and produce 4 Million Candlepower, about 1/20th of the way there.


----------



## mvyrmnd (Mar 15, 2013)

*Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*

De-doming is great in a reflectored light, as it widens the emissive angle, sending more light into the reflector, and therefore the hotspot. The reduction is apparent die size is a double bonus, as we all know, the smaller the light source, the more focused the output. 

Behind an aspheric lens, the wider emissive angle would result in less light being picked up by the lens - but whether or not this cancels out the improvement in apparent die size, I couldn't tell you. You would probably have a more focused beam, with a whole bunch less lumens.

My dedomed ST90 just breaks into the 200k [email protected] club - and is very much outclassed by high quality HID's. It'll barely hold up against a eBay HID, and a FFIII, but that's about it.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 15, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*

Ah, now I get it. De-doming does the opposite of what I thought. So it actually widens the angle, which means extremely bad for aspherics. So this is currently the ultimate state of LED throw performance. I'm really feeling the urge to get a PH50 now.

EDIT: I'd really like to get a nice de-domed light for my bike light because I prefer less spill and more light out ahead.


----------



## mvyrmnd (Mar 15, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*

In the case of the SST-90 this is true.

I can't remember if saabluster de-domes the emitter in the DEFT-X, but it uses a light-recycling collar, which would capture the "wasted" light and send it back to the phosphor to 'try again'.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 15, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*

The WAIVEN I believe... it's the almost same thing as a retro-reflector, but for LEDs, except that retro-reflectors are not a "try again" basis where "hopefully" each try happens to put the photons in the right direction, but rather reflection into the opposite direction directly to the primary reflector. It would be interesting to see how the collared LED with aspheric lens compares with the de-domed LED with reflector. My sense is the de-domed LED has an edge in that it does not rely on "try again" and it's "apparent" luminance area is somewhat reduced.

Here's another consideration that could potentially boost the de-domed LED intensity. The de-domed configuration relies heavily on a deep reflector, but a shallow reflector could potentially do wonders because the "apparent" size of the emitter is reduced with greater incident angle. I'd say use a conic reflector positioned directly right over the emitter, facing the emitter. Basically a bat-wing by means of reflection rather than a dome, which would reflect the unused photons directly to the primary reflector without the "try again" method. However in this case this would also increase the "apparent" luminance size for that portion of the light, so it would be wise to also consider reflecting that unused light back to the emitter the with the "try again" method as well.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 15, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*



get-lit said:


> DHere's some of his *beamshots* showing the PH50 up against the SR90. I saw a video of this some time ago as well.



sweet    Patriot have any PH40 shots by any chance?

The PH50 is gnarly. No argument there.

Also putting this here, as a point of reference:







According to selfbuilt, the SR90 is outputting 1,450 lumens ANSI.

Patriots beam shot from the SR90:






while the EagleTac MX25L2 is outputting 2,200 lumens ANSI.

[Need EagleTac beam shot here ]

The Olight has better lux, but they are handicapped using an older bin and isn't being driven as hard.

You have to admit the EagleTac's numbers are impressive for what it is. It's probably the brightest single SST-90 flashlight in the market, and, it has the added convenience and safety of using 2 X 26650 batteries. Wish I could lend it to Patriot so a beamshot can be taken.


----------



## The_Driver (Mar 15, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*



get-lit said:


> Did some reading up on de-doming. This really does wonders for the luminance distribution profile which really helps makes up for the lack of luminous intensity. The Olight SR95S-U uses a domeless SBT-70. It's smaller than the SBT-90 at 3mm diameter and overdriven. The light puts out 260,000 Lux at 1 meter using a 88mm (3.5") reflector.
> 
> These 1 meter readings only predict the best case scenario of Lux at distance, because up close the readings don't fully differentiate intensity of the spill light from that of the beam light. Still this thing is a beast and pretty much the king of LED throw...
> 
> ...



The numbers of the Olight SR-95S UT are not actually measured at 1m. They are calculated back from measurements in greater distances. Anything else wouldn't make much sense with such a big reflector. Members of the German TLF forum have confirmed this. 

Another thing that I really need to stress concerning the reflectors of these 2 lights: the Olight reflector is in no way comparable to the Polarion reflector in terms of quality. The is the case for 99% of the led flashlights talked about here. It has a higher reflectivity, a more exact profile/shape etc. Because of their large, glowing surface leds are much more forgiving when it comes to optics and their alignment. Especially larger ones like those from Luminus. 

Another thing to consider: even though it is used in the farthest throwing, standard led flashlight on the market, the Luminus SBT-70 is really not that great because its extremely inefficient. Current Cree LEDs are soo much better. When de-domed and heatsinked properly they also boast a higher luminance. 

Here you can find a very interesting post by sma in German Forum on the light (the link already includes gogole translator). Sma actually measured the luminance of the SBT-70 in the Olight without the reflector and calculated what the lux-readings of the light should be: 242.000lux. Very funny, don't you think? 

Where did you get the information that the SBT-70 in the Olight SR-95S UT is overdriven? I don't believe it is. 

Currently I think the best way to get a similar beam to the Polarion lights is to use 3-4 de-domed XM-Ls on copper PCBs in a light like the TK-75 or the BTU Shocker. It still isn't the same, but it's much better compared to what we had like to years ago or even what any manufacturer makes today.


----------



## mvyrmnd (Mar 15, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*



ledmitter_nli said:


> The Olight has better lux, but they are handicapped using an older bin and isn't being driven as hard.
> 
> You have to admit the EagleTac's numbers are impressive for what it is. It's probably the brightest single SST-90 flashlight in the market, and, it has the added convenience and safety of using 2 X 26650 batteries. Wish I could lend it to Patriot so a beamshot can be taken.



It has lots of lumens, yes, but it's a VERY long way behing in the Lux stakes, the SR95S-UT producing 260k Lux, where the Eagletac is producing 74k. Remember again that the PH40 was 2.5 times brighter, and the PH50 3.6 times brighter than the SR95S-UT, it's a given that LED's really do have a long way to go to catch up with high-quality HID's - which was the initial point of this arguement, was it not?


----------



## mvyrmnd (Mar 15, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*



The_Driver said:


> please read red text
> 
> I agree with your comparison ( i havea Varapower Turbo with de-domed SST-90, I have compared it with many lights including well known HIDs), but it is a bit unfair since the SST-90 is somwhat outdated (in terms of efficiency and luminance) and those 2 HID flashlights use much more power Watts.



Food for thought. It'll take me a few beers to read all that.

While the comparison may not be fair - the SST-90/SBT-90/SBT-70 are the biggest guns in the (single die) LED arsenal - and and the fairest HID comparison we've got.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Mar 15, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*



mvyrmnd said:


> It has lots of lumens, yes, but it's a VERY long way behing in the Lux stakes, the SR95S-UT producing 260k Lux, where the Eagletac is producing 74k. Remember again that the PH40 was 2.5 times brighter, and the PH50 3.6 times brighter than the SR95S-UT, it's a given that LED's really do have a long way to go to catch up with high-quality HID's - which was the initial point of this arguement, was it not?



Agreed indeed. The SR90 has a HUGE reflector. The EagleTac is a small pip in comparison. I like the compromise in throw and spill. It's almost like a big Malkoff


----------



## get-lit (Mar 15, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*



The_Driver said:


> The numbers of the Olight SR-95S UT are not actually measured at 1m. They are calculated back from measurements in greater distances. Anything else wouldn't make much sense with such a big reflector. Members of the German TLF forum have confirmed this.



Thanks, it's very good to know this form of measuring is commonly used because it's silly to take close up Lux readings when it wouldn't really reveal much about how the beam will resolve to Lux at distance.



The_Driver said:


> Another thing that I really need to stress concerning the reflectors of these 2 lights: the Olight reflector is in no way comparable to the Polarion reflector in terms of quality. The is the case for 99% of the led flashlights talked about here. It has a higher reflectivity, a more exact profile/shape etc. Because of their large, glowing surface leds are much more forgiving when it comes to optics and their alignment. Especially larger ones like those from Luminus.



In my experience most HID compatible reflectors are actually less reflective than LED reflectors because they use Rhodium in order to withstand the intensity and Rhodium only has 70% reflectance. There are some additional expensive coatings that can be applied to improve reflectance, but as far as I'm aware LED reflectors can achieve 90% reflectance without much fuss. So I'm not sure how to estimate a factor for this for our comparisons here.

As for shape accuracy and surface accuracy, if I had to apply a factor, I'd say it's fair enough to say the LED lights are hindered by 20% by the reflector, which should be considered when comparing here.




The_Driver said:


> Another thing to consider: even though it is used in the farthest throwing, standard led flashlight on the market, the Luminus SBT-70 is really not that great because its extremely inefficient. Current Cree LEDs are soo much better. When de-domed and heatsinked properly they also boast a higher luminance.



Can you arrive at a *rough* estimate for a factor of LUX improvement that could be expected between the SBT-70 and the best de-domed LED?





The_Driver said:


> Where did you get the information that the SBT-70 in the Olight SR-95S UT is overdriven? I don't believe it is.



I read a post, maybe in one of the links I listed. Someone said they would not buy the SR-95S UT because Olight cheaped out and opted for the SBT-70 and compensated by overdriving it.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 15, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*



The_Driver said:


> Currently I think the best way to get a similar beam to the Polarion lights is to use 3-4 de-domed XM-Ls on copper PCBs in a light like the TK-75 or the BTU Shocker. It still isn't the same, but it's much better compared to what we had like to years ago or even what any manufacturer makes today.



Sounds like a supercharged civic with nitrous going neck and neck with a lambo.


----------



## The_Driver (Mar 16, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*



get-lit said:


> Thanks, it's very good to know this form of measuring is commonly used because it's silly to take close up Lux readings when it wouldn't really reveal much about how the beam will resolve to Lux at distance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thats funny, because the SBT-70 is actually a new led that is rather expensive. At Mouser they cost 45-57$ per piece. Thats like 6 times as epensive as an XM-L2 led.



get-lit said:


> Sounds like a supercharged civic with nitrous going neck and neck with a lambo.



Unfortunately thats basically what it is. What has changed is that in the last half year, making a light with this kind of performance has become much easier. There are now reliable methods of de-doming Cree leds (soaking them in gasoline or acetone for example). The new second versions of their leds are very efficient. And we also now have cheap copper pcbs for the Cree LEDs that allow extreme overdrive currents (XP-G2 @ 5A for example) that were not possible a year ago. For the flashaholic these are good times.

Unfortunately the Chinese manufacturers probably wont make use of most of these new possibilities.


----------



## get-lit (Mar 16, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*

I have no idea about the coating on the Polarions. They might be low enough intensity to not need Rhodium. The XP-G2 R5 de-domed @ 5A should be right up there with the PH40. I think the post I saw about the SBT-70 was speculation.


----------



## The_Driver (Mar 16, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*



get-lit said:


> The XP-G2 R5 de-domed @ 5A should be right up there with the PH40.



Now all we need is more lumens


----------



## TEEJ (Mar 16, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*



The_Driver said:


> Now all we need is more lumens



Cue the Tim Allen sound effects...


----------



## The_Driver (Mar 17, 2013)

*Re: Surefire Annihilator (5000 LED lumens. 8 die) vs Polarion PF40. Interesting mat*



TEEJ said:


> Cue the Tim Allen sound effects...


----------

