# 60 lm/W halogen bulb. TESTED!!!!



## davidefromitaly (Mar 18, 2006)

finally i have do a overdrive test on the new osram irc series...

first of all i have test them with 3 li-ion cells (D size so low voltage drop) and consider the output 100%

then with 4 cells: output 249%

with 5 cells: 460%

this mean that the ususal table for calculate overdrive remain correct, so with 5 cells the efficiency reach 60lm/w!!!!! more than some hid lamps... incredible!!!!

the lamp life is over 4000 hours with 3 cells, 400 hours with 4 and 30h with 5 cells. the cost of the lamp is around 5$ in germany (plus shipping fees etc...)... quite cheap

here a image of the lamps http://digilander.libero.it/cuxdavide/osram irc.jpg

you can see that the filament is axial, only the glass is slightly frosted and can affect the beam, maybe is a problem of my lamps and others are more clear, i hope so...

osram produce 4 wattage of this lamps: 25, 35, 50, 65W

the 25W is the less efficient overall, the 35 and 65W the more efficient.

the 35W with 5 cells drain around 68W and output 4000 lumens

the 65W with 5 cells drain around 125W and output 7500-8000 lumens


----------



## bwaites (Mar 18, 2006)

These lamps demand big overdrives to provide a white light. My 65 watt on 12 A cells is still much warmer and yellower than a 62138 on 11 cells. 

They do, however, put out a LOT of light!!

That haze or fog is the coating used to absorb/reflect the infrared back into the envelope. It is effective, too!! Because of that coating, the filament stays hot longer after you shut off the lamp, and so glows for quite a while.

I have yet to push these with more than 12 cells, but I suspect they will handle 15-17 NiMH cells without to much problem. 

I haven't had much time lately to play, trying to get the next shipment of USL's ready!!

Bill


----------



## js (Mar 18, 2006)

Not possible.

The highest LPW attainable with a tungsten halogen incandescent is about 42.

You can't trust the re-rating formulas outside of +/- 10 or 20 percent.

Trust me. You haven't got a 60 LPW lamp.


----------



## Spacemarine (Mar 18, 2006)

davidefromitaly said:


> first of all i have test them with 3 li-ion cells (D size so low voltage drop)



Have you measured the voltage drop? Being a D size cell doesen't automatically give it a low internal resistance. There can also be a lot of losses in the cables and connectors that go to the lamp. It would be useful if you measured the voltage directly at the two pins of the bulb each time.



davidefromitaly said:


> then with 4 cells: output 249%
> 
> with 5 cells: 460%



How did you measure that? Do you have a light meter?



davidefromitaly said:


> this mean that the ususal table for calculate overdrive remain correct, so with 5 cells the efficiency reach 60lm/w!



I don't think that the formulas are correct with IRC bulbs. The efficiancy gain comes mostly from the fact, that at higher voltages, less of the whole output is infrared. But IRC works best if there is a lot of IR radiation, so the gain that comes from the IRC coating will go down when the voltage goes up.



davidefromitaly said:


> you can see that the filament is axial, only the glass is slightly frosted and can affect the beam, maybe is a problem of my lamps and others are more clear, i hope so...



Like bwaites already said: The "frosting" is the IRC coating, all IRC bulbs have that.



davidefromitaly said:


> the 25W is the less efficient overall, the 35 and 65W the more efficient.



How do you come to that conclusion?



davidefromitaly said:


> the cost of the lamp is around 5$ in germany (plus shipping fees etc...)... quite cheap



I bought a few and tested them. I could overdrive them to 21 Volts (measured directly at the twp pins of the bulb) without blowing it. At 18V it drew exactly 70W from my regulated power source.


----------



## Spacemarine (Mar 18, 2006)

js said:


> The highest LPW attainable with a tungsten halogen incandescent is about 42.



That's only right for a normal incandescent. If you use an IRC coating to reflect the IR radiation back onto the filament, the efficiency can theoretically be much higher.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 18, 2006)

I didn't want to burst anyones bubble, but js is correct. IRC lamps may increase the efficiency by increasing the filament temp, but Tungsten starts melting long before you reach a 60 lumen/watt figure.

That is an impressive overdrive!! How white could you make it?

Bill


----------



## Spacemarine (Mar 18, 2006)

bwaites said:


> I didn't want to burst anyones bubble, but js is correct.


No.



bwaites said:


> IRC lamps may increase the efficiency by increasing the filament temp, but Tungsten starts melting long before you reach a 60 lumen/watt figure.


IRC doesen't increase the efficiency by increasing the filament temp, but by reducing reducing the current that is needed to heat the filament. In a conventional bulb, all the energy that is used to heat the filament comes from the current. In an IRC bulb, only a part of it comes from the current, the other part comes from the reflected IR. This means that you can maintain the same output while decreasing the input.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 18, 2006)

YES! Show me a single lamp that approaches 50 Lumens/watt.

But, it is essentially the same thing, isn't it? 

Less energy to heat the filament to it's most efficient level from the power source because you are using the IR already produced from the filament to increase the temperature of the filament!

But again, the tunsten vaporizes before you get close to 60 lumens/watt.

Bill


----------



## Spacemarine (Mar 18, 2006)

bwaites said:


> YES! Show me a single lamp that approaches 50 Lumens/watt.


Because I don't have one here, doesen't mean it isn't possible.



bwaites said:


> But, it is essentially the same thing, isn't it?



Yes, we are talking about the same thing, only that you think IRC is used to rise the filament temperature compared to a conventional bulb, whereas my focus is on the fact that the filament temperature is the same in both bulbs and the IRC is only used to lower the current.



bwaites said:


> But again, the tunsten vaporizes before you get close to 60 lumens/watt.


Tungston vaporizes at a certain temperature, not at a certain efficiency.

Here's an example as easy as possible: Let's say that we have two bulbs. A conventional one and one with an IRC coating. Both are burning very close to the melting point of tungston. This means that the conventional bulb has an efficiency of 42 lm/w and emits a certain amount of IR radiation. The IRC bulb reflects some of the IR radiation back onto it's filament, where the energy is "reused" to heat the filament, instead of heating your room. If you would drive both bulbs at the same voltage, the IRC bulb would blow, because the filament would get too hot. To avoid this, the voltage of the IRC bulb is lowered (so that the tungston is near the melting point), resulting in a lower current and a lower power.

Now what do we have? We have two bulbs at the same filament temperature, thus emitting the same amount of light. The conventional one is burning at 42 lm/w and the other one draws less power, but emits the same amount of light. This can only mean one thing! The IRC bulb has an efficiency of MORE than 42 lm/w.

Do you agree? If not, please state exactly where the error in my argumentation is.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 18, 2006)

I agree, but the WHOLE idea of IRC lamps is increasing efficiency, not increasing lumen output, or allowing the same output from less electrical energy.

When I state that tungsten vaporizes before you can get to that efficiency, I am simply stating that in order for the filament to produce that much light, the filament would have to get hotter than it is possible for it to get, not that it is a relationship of efficiency to vaporization point. I assume (not always a good idea, I know) that anyone reading this type of thread would understand the implied.

In this particular case, the whole argument is whether that IRC technology allows the lamp to reach an efficiency of 60 Lumens/watt. My point is that tungsten simply won't allow that, regardless of what technology you use. 

The IRC technology simply allows you to do it with less input energy from your power source, it doesn't allow you to get somewhere where you can't go because of the limitations of the tungsten.

If you find an INCANDESCENT lamp that approaches 60 Lumens/watt, we want it!! But so far we can't find one that is close to 50, and in fact most are closer to 25-30, including the overdriven WA and Osram lamps. The overdriven 62138 in the USL, for instance, is around 28-32, and it is incredibly white. Some of the WA lamps approach 35, if I recall correctly, but none 60 or even 50.

Bill


----------



## Spacemarine (Mar 18, 2006)

bwaites said:


> The WHOLE idea of IRC lamps is increasing efficiency



That's exactly right.



bwaites said:


> not increasing lumen output


Why not?



bwaites said:


> or allowing the same output from less electrical energy.


Allowing the same output from less electrical energy is exactly what we call "increasing efficiency". I don't understand how you can say that this isn't the purpose of IRC, while at the same time you say that the purpose is "increasing efficiency"!



bwaites said:


> In this particular case, the whole argument is whether that IRC technology allows the lamp to reach an efficiency of 60 Lumens/watt.


I NEVER said that you could reach 60 lm/w with an IRC bulb. I simply said that js was wrong when he said that it's impossible to get more than 42 lm/w out of an incan bulb because his statement is only true for conventional bulb without IRC.



bwaites said:


> My point is that tungsten simply won't allow that, regardless of what technology you use.


Your point is wrong. Let's say we have a "perfect" IRC shield, that reflects all IR and UV radiation back onto the filament. Now all the energy would go into visible light, with no losses from IR or UV radiation, that our eye can't see. Because we are now converting the whole energy into visible light, we would get around 200 lm/w, which is the theorethical maximum for white light.

I know that this technology doesen't exist yet, but this doesen't mean that it's impossible to come close to that.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 18, 2006)

How is my point wrong? You have a 60 Lumen/watt light?

Now I understand! You are arguing to simply argue!!

NO tungsten filament will EVER do what you THEORETICALLY are proposing, you're into Star Trek technology there!!! A THEORECTICALLY perfect IR/UV reflector which allows visible light to pass goes right in there with teleportation, force fields, and Warp Drives!!

You keep arguing the same point, IRC tech was developed to increase efficiency as you say, and there is NO WAY that it can create 60 Lumen/watt! Unless of course, you are ready to release YOUR new IR/UV coating.

js point was simple, "there ain't no way"!

I agree, there ain't no way, not with today's tech. Of course, when you come up with that coating and some 60 Lumen/watt lamps useful in a flashlight, I'll be first in line to buy some!!!

Until then, there ain't no way!!!

Bill


----------



## Sanny (Mar 18, 2006)

Tungsten technology only sets a limit on the maximum temperature of the filament, which translates into maximum color temperature of the light source and maximum "power density" of the light source (power radiated per unit surface, following the kwown T^4 law of heat radiation) - a "point-source quality measurement".
IRC achieves a reduction of the electric power needed to reach the same filament temperature of non-IRC bulbs, hence getting the same light (if the filament is the same) using less power: more lumens-per-watt or a higher efficiency.
Am I missing something? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't think there is a dramatic difference in efficiency between standard halogen and IRC bulbs, but IRC does permit higher efficiencies than standard halogen technology.

Somebody should experiment with overdriven IRC bulbs and throw in some real world numbers! 

Sanny


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 18, 2006)

Sanny said:


> IRC achieves a reduction of the electric power needed to reach the same filament temperature of non-IRC bulbs, hence getting the same light (if the filament is the same) using less power: more lumens-per-watt or a higher efficiency.
> 
> Am I missing something? Please correct me if I'm wrong.


What you're missing is that when you overdrive the filament a smaller percentage of its emission falls within the infrared spectrum which is reflected by the IR coating. In other words, the IR coating offers a smaller percentage of efficiency increase over a standard bulb as the filament temperature increases. At "normal" filament temperatures I've heard these bulbs with IR coatings can offer efficiencies in the low 30s compared to mid 20s for regular halogen bulbs. However, their efficiency doesn't scale the same as regular halogen bulbs for the reasons I said. By the time you reach the filament temperatures where regular halogens are in the 40+ lm/W realm, the IR coating is offering little if any additional benefit. My guess is you'll be lucky to break 45 lm/W with _any_ incandescent bulb, IR coated or otherwise.

Now if we use unobtainium filaments which can run at 6500K you can obtain efficiencies of about 93 lm/W.


----------



## LEDcandle (Mar 18, 2006)

I'm totally out of my league here but :-






Pic extracted from my thread :
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/110551 (for more info on the test)

156w --> 10,585 lumen
= 67.85 lm/w

Haha... nah, just kidding!! :lolsign: I know that's not an integrating sphere! 

But then again, that isn't bulb lumens and there's light leaking out from the back.... so could it be possible...... Someone chuck this type of bulb into a real IS.... 

Pls don't flame my noob claims!  I don't want to anger the incan gods!


----------



## bwaites (Mar 18, 2006)

And thus we see why you cannot calculate Lumens from Lux readings!

But there is a table somewhere here in CPF where the maximums with todays technologies were all posted: Incans, LED's, Metal Vapor, fluorescent, etc.

Bill


----------



## LEDcandle (Mar 18, 2006)

Yeah, I knew 10k lumens was too good to be true... but well, a man can dream can't he


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 18, 2006)

these bulbs do look really interesting.. for outdoor use, you do not need the 'white'.. the 625 lamp though outputting more than the 138 does not have the detail and definition, and i get a lot more white flashback. 

A study of lumen per watt on these would be interesting, also with the 623 lamp for that matter.. however i will say this about the re-rating formulas.. they were FAR off for my osram lamps until i actually made a baseline MEASUREMENT of wattage rather than making the incorrect assumption that at 12V they were 100W.

the osram 62138 which i run at 13.2V re-rates to 32.1 L/W, a reasonable estimate.. however if you use 100W and 12V like the label says it re-rates to 33.7L/W.. not tragically different.. now let's compare to the 64625... if using 100W and 12V like the box says you will get a re-rated value of 40.6 Lum/Watt.. at 12.76V.. a far cry from the far more accurate 36.6 L/W. 

plugging the numbers into the re-rating formula properly.. if you measured 18V and 70W exactly.. that means 3.89A.. it also means to achieve that with the re-rating to fit in, the "35W" is actually 37.3W with 12.0V and 3.11A.

It still re-rates to 3720 bulb lumen at 53.1 L/W.. which for incandescent is not possible as far as i know, so more than likely a wall is hit and the efficiency is not up to snuff.. basically .. with the color temp being only 3000 and 900L baseline.. i would bet it's not as high up on the efficiency curve. 

What needs to be done is take one of these lamps overdriven nice and hard and compare to a baseline we can measure, even with as simple and crude as a ceiling bounce with a light meter to get a realistic estimate of lum/watt at the over drive levels. osram claims 900L base, but a measurement at 12.00V of what current it's pulling is an absolute requirement at first.. the '625 lamp showed over 40L/W before finding out that the "100W" really mean "111W". 

The 4000 hr life rating will mean it's capable of some extreeeem over drive.. do your overdrive calculations with POWER not voltage and the will represent reality.. voltage doesn't create light, power does.. hence lumen per WATT not lumen per VOLT. 

The bulb looks really interesting, i'd be up for a couple for testing. 

-awr


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 18, 2006)

here's the chart bill referred to:


----------



## thesurefire (Mar 18, 2006)

Can someone explaine to me why the melting point of tungsten is even relavant? While I have a hard time believe and Incan can hit more then 45 l/w, I would like to understand how the melting point of tungsten matters. If your saying the wire would just melt, and drip off, fine. Then 45 l/w is not possible with a tungsten wire, there have to better alloys to emite light somewhere...


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 18, 2006)

10K Lumen not 'too good to be true'.. my buddy LarryK just invented a pretty scary light.. uses a 600W landing lamp and magically fits exactly into a $7 light host from harbor freight.. we got some beamshots today.. makes a Mag100 look like a maglite.


----------



## winny (Mar 18, 2006)

I feel that I need to back up my buddy Spacemarine on this one...

bwaites,

40 years ago everyone said they it would be impossible to create a handheld PC but they do exist today so how can you possibly say that something that is theoretically possible will never become possible in reality? 

And yes, you can convert your "lux readings" into luminous flux. That is exactly what you do with an integrating sphere. If LEDcandles shoe box is just white enough (equal absorption for all frequencies), he can definitely convert his illuminance readings into luminous flux.

And another thing, just because a table from Osram, Sylviana or even Welch Allyn shows what commercial lamps, driven at the specified voltage, can provide for efficiency, doesn't mean that is the maximum you could possibly get. That's like saying "Ford said to me that the achievable limit for a cars efficiency is 30% so you are lying about your electric car being 90 % efficient, even if you can measure it."

I would still agree with you that LEDcandles figure is too high, but I can't buy your argumentation.


LEDcandle,

With increased color temperature, your light meter is probably way out of its rated color temperature and thus inaccurate. How much varies, but keep in mind that 99 % of all light meters are only calibrated for 2856 K incandescent lamps. IMHO, I would give your reading a +- 20% error margin + your rated error margin.


thesurefire,

I can try to explain.

It's not only the melting point that is important, it's also the rate of vaporization that matters. If the filament would evaporate more easily when heated, the bulbs lifetime would be shorter and therefore not as good. If you wanted to make a super incandescent bulb with very short lifetime and extreme efficiency, you might do better with a carbon filament because of its higher melting point but it would blacken very fast.
Tungsten is the best choice between the rate of vaporization and melting point found to this date that is commercially doable. 


When I have some time over, I will take a trip to the Swedish governmental test and verification institute (SP) with some IRC lamps and find out for myself if 42 lm/W really is the _current_ achievable limit using their seriously calibrated integrating sphere. I doubt it is.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 18, 2006)

winny,

I'm sorry, but no light ever sold operated on theory. They operate in reality, and the simple truth is that the figure is impossible with todays technology. In fact, without some breakthrough in material tecnology, it is impossible, period. That said, the technology to allow this won't happen for a very simple reason, we already have technologies capable of better performance. Incandescent technology may creap forward a bit more, but there will be no leaps that allow the kinds of outputs discussed here.

If someone has gone to the future and brought back some lamps that have better performance, I'll jump in line.

Second, the difference between an integrating sphere and a shoe box is huge, and as you pointed out, the simple answer here is that there is error more than sufficient to compensate for the obvious impossibility of those luminous outputs.

That's all either Jim or I am saying, those outputs are impossible!

Third, IRC lamps are designed to work best at low current flows, after all, the very reason for them is to increase efficiency, ie. use less energy to produce the same amount of light. They are not designed to be ultimate high output lamps.

The IRC's from Osram, especially, are designed to be low voltage lights, with extremely long life spans. Obviously they are underdriven at 12 volts. Their color temps and outputs notwithstanding, they are technical tours de force, with return filaments that go down thru the axial coils. 

Once again, we are arguing an impossibility, NO incan lamp has that kind of efficiency.

That is all either js or I intended to point out.

Bill


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 18, 2006)

the number '42' is not a set-in-stone but rather a very reasonable value to use as the upper limit of using tungsten resistive filament lamps.

I've pushed plenty of tunsten halogen lamps past their maximum limit and the observed data falls right in-line with the 'about 40' maximum of lumen/watt. 

If there is some advance to make it more than that, i would expect marginal gains not leaps and bounds.. the problem is that the nature of incandescent is inefficiency.. it creates light because it's an inefficient transfer of electricity across a conductor (resistance).. which generates heat.. the heat in-turn heats the coincidental conductor 'til it glows incandescent. It's a terribly inefficient way to convert electricity into lumen (not nearly as bad as a speaker at turning electricity into sound!).. typically closer to 1-3% efficient perhaps... consider a multi-hundred-watt stereo system will typically get less than 2watts of accustic power at full volume into the room... that is just stunningly inefficient. 

There are of course plenty of add'l reasons why W is the perfect material for lamp filaments.. it has a very similar coefficient of expansion with glass so can be bridged right through glass in many cases (of course in the extremely high-power lamps that's not the case).. it also has the highest melting point of any metal... one thing that maybe doesn't help but is probably part of the other.. it is EXTREMELY HEAVY. most people are quite unaware of how ridiculously dense tungsten is!.. 

W is 70% more dense (heavy) than LEAD.. it is 2.5x as dense as steel and exactly the density of gold.. 19.3g/cc It's just downright fun stuff to play with.. i have a box of about 20kg.. it is 1/2 the size of a shoebox.. and i ask people to pick it up for me.. they are convinced it's bolted to the floor 'til i kick it hard and it moves. 

-awr


----------



## Spacemarine (Mar 18, 2006)

bwaites said:


> How is my point wrong?


Your point is wrong, because you said "tungsten simply won't allow that, regardless of what technology you use."

If you would know EVERY technology that is available today, then you could make the possibly correct statement: "regardless of what available technology you use"
But you don't know EVERY available technology, nobody does.

You said something that you can't possibly know, that's why your point is wrong.



bwaites said:


> NO tungsten filament will EVER do what you THEORETICALLY are proposing


How can I take you seriously if you begin to make claims that are impossible to back up?



bwaites said:


> And thus we see why you cannot calculate Lumens from Lux readings!


Perhaps you can't do that, that doesen't mean that it's impossible. I did it here:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/110705

Why shouldn't I be able to do that?



bwaites said:


> That said, the technology to allow this won't happen for a very simple reason, we already have technologies capable of better performance. Incandescent technology may creap forward a bit more, but there will be no leaps that allow the kinds of outputs discussed here.


You sound like THE technology expert on earth. But from your posts I can tell that you are not. How can you you know that the leaps won't come from some other fields of technology, like quantum optics?


----------



## Luna (Mar 18, 2006)

Guys keep in mine lumens is not linear with wavelength. THink about it, decrease in IR forces more output into the visible spectrum (it has to go somewhere). Since so much energy emitted by a tungsten lamp is IR, any shift of the output into the visible spectrum increase the lumens. Lumens are weighted so that energy distribution is representative of human sensitivity. THe vlamba curve is exploited by HID and tubes so as to be more eff in terms of human vision due to decrease out of bound emissions. This lamp is doing the same although I doubt it really is 60lu per watt , though I wouldn't bet on it.

JS and bwaites,tag teaming again I see. (and it is funny to see JS crap on the formulas that he preached to me as gospel. Maybe now he will realize the approach I used in the past because this time he is right, they are only accurate in a small range. An now bwaites is attacking the ceiling bounce. )


----------



## Spacemarine (Mar 18, 2006)

Sanny said:


> Am I missing something? Please correct me if I'm wrong.


You are absolutely right.



jtr1962 said:


> In other words, the IR coating offers a smaller percentage of efficiency increase over a standard bulb as the filament temperature increases.


Yes, that's what I said in post #4. Thanks for giving me backup!



jtr1962 said:


> By the time you reach the filament temperatures where regular halogens are in the 40+ lm/W realm, the IR coating is offering little if any additional benefit.



Do you have any source for that? I would be extremely happy to see a chart with "IRC gain over filament temperature"

At nearly the melting point of tungston, the IRC efficiency increase will be smaller than at lower temperatures, but I think it will still be noticable because even at the melting point, around 80 % of the radiated energy is IR.

Let's say the IRC coating is able to bring back 20% of the IR onto the filament. In the case where the bulb has about 20 lm/w, 90% of the radiated energy is IR. The IRC brings back 20% of that, meaning it reflects 18% of the total radiated energy back onto the filament.

Now let's say the bulb operates at 40 lm/w, meaning only 80% of the radiated energy is IR. The IRC bings back 20% of that, meaning it reflects 16% of the total energy.

The efficiency increase is a little smaller in that case, but not much. But it could also be that the IRC coating only works on a very small bandwidth of IR, making the difference much bigger that the 18%/16% ratio.


----------



## Luna (Mar 18, 2006)

> It's a terribly inefficient way to convert electricity into lumen



Watt is this lumen you speak of?


Seriously though, it is very efficient at production of photometric energy. It just has too broad of an energy distribution to be considered 'Photopicly' efficient. All it takes is to convert the IR to visible to make the incandescent more efficient. If a more modern Welsbach mantle of sorts could be developed for filament bulbs, you would see the lu/w figure skyrocket.

In this case we have a 35w bulb with 50W output. Take the 30lu of a really good lamp and apply the *35% more lumens per watt " of the IRC series. Id doubt 60l/w is a possibility here.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 18, 2006)

Give me a break!

If you have that technology, since I certainly am NOT the expert you seem to think I think I am, bring it on!!

The technology doesn't exist, or someone would be using it. Don't you think a 50-100% increase in efficiency would be exploitable? It would essentially halve the cost of lighting using incandescent lamps!!! If it was out there, it would be being used!!

I made the statement because it isn't! Simple. Tungsten won't allow it because it isn't a perfect radiator, it's the closest we've found for common use, but it won't do it.

Apply as much power as you want, however you want, using whatever coatings you want. It won't get there. Do you guys honestly believe it will? 

As far as quantum optics, I'm no expert, but from what I can see, that won't improve the output of the filament, and the filament is the limiting factor. Tungsten glows when you pass a current through it, it glows brighter when you pass more because it gets hotter, when you get to some point it vaporizes. 

IRC coatings allow you to reflect more heat back on the filament, using less current to create the heat, but it still has the limitation of vaporizing when you get it hotter. So, the perfect filament heats slowly to it's maximum stable temperature, at which point it is as hot as it can get without melting. At that point, it is producing the maximum light possible, right?

So far as I can find, that maximum is well under 50 Lumens/watt using available technology. That's all we're talking about folks! 

If there is an available incan technology that allows those outputs, 6000 lumens from 100 watts, lets see it!!

I'm simply saying it isn't out there and not going to happen because other technologies have overtaken incans and will be the future. No one will do the research with incans because other methods of producing light are much more efficient already.

Bill


----------



## NewBie (Mar 18, 2006)

I am still waiting for the tungsten lattice I mentioned a few years ago to make it to market:

"This could raise the efficiency of an incandescent electric bulb from 5 percent to greater than 60 percent. "

http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2002/tungsten.htm


----------



## jwl (Mar 18, 2006)

I am just sharing the information I have found and in no way am I making any claims as to how may lumens/watt are or are not possible. Although from what I can see the IRC is a really good thing in that we can run a 35W bulb and get 50W of output, BUT not use as much power which should mean a longer run time and maybe less radiated heat.

Here is some information that I just found. According to Osram-Sylvania the IRC DOES in fact increase efficiency. Below is a paragraph from a Osram-Sylvania web page. 

*IRC technology (Infrared Reflective Coating)*
Halogen lamps don’t just produce light. 60% of the created radiation are infrared (IR) rays. The innovative IRC technology increases the efficiency of halogen lamps by reflecting a major part of the generated useless IR radiation back to the coil where it is converted into visible light. The infrared reflective coating at the outside of the burner acts as an IR mirror but lets nearly 100% of visible light pass (see figure 2). In comparison to standard halogen lamps it is possible to optimise the lamp in different directions by using the IRC process:

• more light output
• less electrical power
• increased lifetime or
• a mix of all

This link is were you can find the Figure 2 that is referred to in the above paragraph.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 18, 2006)

I think the basic point here is being lost!

There is no doubt that luminous efficiency can be improved, and I think there is enough data to show that IRC coatings do so.

The problem is 3 fold:

1) 60 Lumens/watt is nearly a 50% increase over what is commonly acknowledged as the upper limits of incandescent technology. If IRC coatings did that, everyone would be using them to improve the efficiency of their lights. That would halve the energy cost of incandescent lighting. It simply can't do it.

2) The NUMBERS achieved by "light box" type metering setups are best used only to compare with other lights using the exact same setup. The meters used are just too inconsistent to justify the numbers. I have no problems COMPARING outputs of two lights, especially if one has a KNOWN output, but it is a comparison. If you think the meters are accurate, go to the batteries forum and check out the numbers in the comparisons of meters.

3) The POSSIBLE or THEORETICAL numbers produced by a tungsten filament. 

When I post here I make 3 assumptions:

A) The lamp is for use in a flashlight or similar light producing piece of equipment.
B) It uses the available technology.
C) That others understand the 2 above.

These lamps are familiar to many of us. Ginseng used these lamps in his Aurora project nearly 2 years ago. 

I won't and don't pretend that I know all there is to know about lamps or coming technology, but I do know that the incandescent technology as used in flashlights is almost at a dead stop. The other options are overwhelming the incan, and development has shifted to other options.

How long has it been since Surefire, the company on the cutting edge of torch lighting, introduced a new incandescent model? Doesn't anyone wonder why?

So I'll stand by my statements until someone can show me otherwise. 

1) Today's (and tomorrows) Tungsten filament lights are stuck. Incremental advances may be made, but not quantum leaps. Tungsten lattices and other exotics notwithstanding, when and if the happen, still won't qualify as a hotwire by our current use.
2) Using lux readings to predict luminous output, without an IS and without carefully calibrated light meters, is a crapshoot. They CAN however make accurate comparisons under the same circumstances. 
3) Future technology MAY make all of this a moot point, but with TODAY's tech, as used in flashlights and normal lighting that us mere mortals have access to, 60 Lumens/watt is not attainable.

I apologize if I offended anyone, but the simple truth is the simple truth. IRC lamps can't give us that much more efficiency. PERIOD.

Bill


----------



## Handlobraesing (Mar 18, 2006)

davidefromitaly said:


> finally i have do a overdrive test on the new osram irc series...
> 
> first of all i have test them with 3 li-ion cells (D size so low voltage drop) and consider the output 100%
> 
> then with 4 cells: output 249%



First, the graph only covers standard type lamp and I'm not sure how close the properties hold true for the HIR type lamp.

Let's say 100% power is 35 watt. According to the graph from the book, which only shows up to 140%, at 133% voltage, the power consumption is ~158% and lumens per watt is ~162%.

So, the output is 256%, but the life of lamp is reduced to close to zero on the graph. I'm guessing in 1-3% region.




> with 5 cells: 460%


Unfortunately, my graph does not go that far and the equation I provided in another thread is only accurate within +/- 10% of the rated voltage, but if you use it anyways, the life comes out to 0.13%, so you'd be lucky if the lamp last just a few hours.




> this mean that the ususal table for calculate overdrive remain correct, so with 5 cells the efficiency reach 60lm/w!!!!! more than some hid lamps... incredible!!!!
> 
> the lamp life is over 4000 hours with 3 cells, 400 hours with 4 and 30h with 5 cells. the cost of the lamp is around 5$ in germany (plus shipping fees etc...)... quite cheap
> 
> ...


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 19, 2006)

I think that where IRC lamps help.. is in the low power, long life bulbs.. bringing a lamp up from 15 to 25 L/W for example.. that's a stunning thing to pull off, for example.. but the efficiency does not carry though up past 40 L/W.. even the extreme example that this thread started with.. would calculate to 53 L/W, a number i don't believe is remotely accurate.

A 'reality check' is the CCT.. if you correlate the CCT vs L/W, there is a very strong tie between how efficient a light is and how white it is.. see here:







In the several dozen lamps i have in my database.. there are TWO that are 'oddballs'.. the 64623 which has an extraordinary amount of output per watt at the sacrifice of whiteness.. and this light mentioned in this thread.. as you can see.. it's in 'laa laa land' compared to quite literally the very best lamps available today in the low-volt halogen type lamp.

The 'reality check' says that it clearly is not an accurate datapoint.. we would *all* love to be wrong.. if i can get my grubs on a 50L/W lamp you can be very sure which lamp will be in my next flashlight. 

I would looove to see what kind of efficiency and CCT exists with the lamp, and it would be awe-inspiring if it's the first lamp i'd use that breaks the 40 L/W barrier. I'll have to get my grubs on a couple of these and put them through their paces.. 

It would help if you could get us some useful information like baseline current at exactly 12.0V.. and at least one other drive level, like the 18.0V, measure the exact current there as well. 

If you have a light meter.. you could do a ceiling bounce or a 'no reflector' measurement of lux at the same distance at each drive levels and we could put this baby to rest properly. osram has a lumen rating of 900 at 12V, and CCT of 3000.. we can go from there. 

-awr


----------



## bwaites (Mar 19, 2006)

Andrew, I have a 65 and a 50 (or maybe a 35?) I'll send you if you want to run them.

I'd like them back, but if they get flashed by the testing, so be it.

PM me your mailing address.

Bill

PS Be forwarned though, they are almost orange in comparison to the 62138 and 64625 you are used to!!!


----------



## Handlobraesing (Mar 19, 2006)

andrewwynn said:


> I think that where IRC lamps help.. is in the low power, long life bulbs.. bringing a lamp up from 15 to 25 L/W for example.. that's a stunning thing to pull off, for example.. but the efficiency does not carry though up past 40 L/W.. even the extreme example that this thread started with.. would calculate to 53 L/W, a number i don't believe is remotely accurate.
> 
> A 'reality check' is the CCT.. if you correlate the CCT vs L/W, there is a very strong tie between how efficient a light is and how white it is.. see here:
> 
> ...



What did you use to take the CCT, power and flux measurements?





This is the relationship between CCT and lm/w for incandescent lamps in general. IRC is a whole different animal.


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 19, 2006)

all using the well established formulas that re-rate all the values.. you can see the spreadsheet here: http://hotrater.rouse.com 

IRC may well have a far different set of curves, part of what we are trying to establish.. however.. i won't be betting on CCT v Efficacy falling far outside the curve shown.. especially with the observed data of the light 'looking yellow'.. if anything it'd be lower, not higher in my estimation. 

awr


----------



## Handlobraesing (Mar 19, 2006)

andrewwynn said:


> all using the well established formulas that re-rate all the values.. you can see the spreadsheet here: http://hotrater.rouse.com
> 
> IRC may well have a far different set of curves, part of what we are trying to establish.. however.. i won't be betting on CCT v Efficacy falling far outside the curve shown.. especially with the observed data of the light 'looking yellow'.. if anything it'd be lower, not higher in my estimation.
> 
> awr



Where did you obtain the formula from? The formula in your calculator is different from formula I posted a few days ago. 

Mine came from the Illumination Engineering Society's reference book. The book says the formula only holds accuracy within +/- 10% of rated value.

For outside that range,


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 19, 2006)

I got the formulas that welch allen seems to use on their website.. somebody posted all the different formulae... JS or bill waites... i forget who it was, but i incorporated the formulas into the spreadsheet listed.. so that it's recursive and takes into account the resistance of the circuit.. 

i.e. because of the voltage drop due to resistance, the lamp voltage will be lower which will drop the current which will lower the voltage drop.. it goes in smaller and smaller circles 'til it finds out what is the final curent, voltage, power.. and once the final voltage is known, all the other values can be calculated.. they work extreeeemly well.. i.e. when i run an 1166 lamp at 12.6V.. and do a ceiling bounce compared to one driven to spec at 11.6.. it comes out dead-on.. as well as the current, the voltage, and the power.. when i do the math with the ceiling bounce that is estimating the lumen and using whatever number i get, it works out spot-on.. considering the chart is 22 yrs old.. might be time to upgrade to a live forumula.. i'm sure that it's based on the same original information. 

let's take a 'for example'. 

the 1274 lamp.. 
7.2V, 2.77A, 19.9W, 553L, 27.7L/W, 40Hr, 3,320CCT
let's go up 10% in voltage to 7.92V
the formulas come up with:
7.92V, 2.92A, 23.1W, 772L, 33.4L/W, 12.7hr, 3,422CCT

now let's check the graph:
7.92V, 2.9A, 23.5W, 746L, 33.24 L/W, 12.8hr, CCT.. too tired to figure it out. 

As you can clearly see.. they are well within the margin of error i could possible read off the chart.. the formulas work fantastically well.. 

Also.. it is very interesting to see how closely the CCT graph matches my scatter plot.. those are actual lamps, driven very hard, so they are higher up the curve.. and also i had no idea what to use for a curve so i used a best fit line (throwing out the two oddballs from the calculation). 

I agree with the idea that the formulas are best by far within 10-15%, but most of the calculations including power, current, voltage, and even to a large extent bulb life, CCT and even Lumens will do fairly ok with 20-25% or more overdrive.. gotta go with what you have.. a failing formula is better than darts. 

-awr


----------



## davidefromitaly (Mar 19, 2006)

i quote all spacemarine say.

i forget to say that the 35W irc have a filament big like the 50W standard bulbs (the 65W irc like the 90w standard), so happends that the same filament emit 900lm at 12v but the irc one draw 35w and the standard one 50w. the lamp life is 4000hr for both. so there isn't any improvement in the filament, the improvement is in the reduction of heat losses. the 50W filament can remain hot with only 35W of power.

before of test this bulbs i had think that the coating will be less efficient with overdrive but my tests say not. at least if my luxmeter lies... ok there can be a 10% error but still remain a efficiency of 55-65 lm/w with a decent lamp life...

i have measured the voltage drop under load of the batts (i read the 2 pins of the lamp) and is around 3.8V per cell when they are fully charged. i'm only sorry that i can't measure the amps (cause the DMM do a little resistance).

i have used the luxmeter at a fixed distance from the bulb (no glass no reflector).

first i have tested the 50W standard bulb then the 35W irc. the nice thing is that with the same number of batteries the lux reading is the same and sometime slightly more in the 35W (maybe cause the less voltage drop...).

this are the results, n° cells, 35W irc, 50W std.

3 cell, 100%, 100%
4 cell, 249%, 237%
5 cell, 460%, 450%
6 cell, -----, 776%

the lumens increase is the same, is clear


----------



## jwl (Mar 19, 2006)

Guys - I'm with bwaites and andrewwynn here. READ PAGE 22 of this osram document.

Under the heading luminous efficacy, it clearly states that 'The melting point of tungsten forms the natural upper limit, and here the luminous efficacy would be *42 lm/W.* However, because a lamp must also be capable of being handled mechanically and switched electrically, the achievable limit is 37 lm/W."

I guess some of you guys know better than Osram. I'd be curious to know what you do for a living, that might backup your claims, not to mention some hard and fast certified test data. I'll tell you right now that my job has nothing to do with lighting and I don't claim to know anything, but I can read published data about *existing* technology, which is what you guys are using to try and back-up your claims.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Mar 19, 2006)

very interesting PDF thanks. only it was print in the year 2000, when IRC technology don't exist, and if i remember well never the halostar starlite series (4000hr bulbs not irc). would be interesting to see the same PDF updated to 2006.

stuff change with the time, for example they say just in the 2000 "in earlier tungsten-halogen lamps it was possible for the cycle to stop and the lamp to blacken when the wattage was considerably reduced (heavily dimmed). in modern halogen lamps (modern stay for the year 2000) on the other hand, ways have been found of conducting the cycle so that no blackening takes place at any level of dimming. as fig.26 shows, the cycle continues functioning down to filament temperatures so low than the evaporation rate of the tungsten filament is insignificant in terms of blackening"

and i have read many times here on cpf to not drive SF lamps with discharged batts cause they blacken faster...

i want to ask to people that have more accurate equipements that mine (like andrewwyn) to do some test for see if i'm wrong or right

take for example the halostar starlite 90W (64458S), osram say 20lm/w with 4000hr lamp life.

if we overdrive it at 20V the output was near the 50lm/w with a lamp life of 10 hours or less ok... but still outthrow the 42lm/w limit.

now or osram lies when say 20lm/w at 4000hr lamp life, or the tables for calculare overdrive lies.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 19, 2006)

Spacemarine said:


> Do you have any source for that? I would be extremely happy to see a chart with "IRC gain over filament temperature"
> 
> At nearly the melting point of tungston, the IRC efficiency increase will be smaller than at lower temperatures, but I think it will still be noticable because even at the melting point, around 80 % of the radiated energy is IR.


Actually, as filament temperature increases a greater percentage of the radiated energy is in the UV range. Another thing is the IR coatings probably mostly reflect deep IR because a coating which also reflected near IR would likely block some visible light as well. Higher filament temperatures mean deep IR is a smaller percentage of the radiated energy. Therefore, the IR coating helps less and less as filament temperature increases. No sources for this, just a bit of common sense reasoning.



NewBie said:


> I am still waiting for the tungsten lattice I mentioned a few years ago to make it to market:
> 
> "This could raise the efficiency of an incandescent electric bulb from 5 percent to greater than 60 percent. "


Except this is really a quantum device similar to an LED. Last I checked the tungsten lattice doesn't emit light by virtue of being heated to incandescense.

The _only_ way we're ever going to exceed ~40 lm/W with an incandescent lamp will be if new materials are developed. Given the rapid pace of LED development, plus the fact that LEDs will eventually do everything an incandescent can do while using far less energy, I concur with bwaites that incandescent development is at a dead stop. There just isn't any point investing the money for what will at best be an incremental improvement of a few percent when we have LEDs ready to hit 150 lm/W in a year or two (and which show all the signs of eventually reaching close to 100% efficiency). Even a super filament material capable of operating at 6500K will only bring efficiency to 93 lm/W. LEDs have already exceeded that number in the lab by a considerable margin.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Mar 19, 2006)

davidefromitaly said:


> ,[size=+4]the 35W irc have a filament big like the 50W standard bulbs. the 50W filament can remain hot with only 35W of power.
> [/size],



it's so difficult to understand?


----------



## bwaites (Mar 19, 2006)

Not difficult to understand at all, but is it difficult to understand that if you drive the filament harder, by adding energy either from reflected IR or more electricity, that the filament vaporizes?

That is all we are saying. IF it gets hotter than the maximum of 42 Lumens/watt, it will melt. 

Now, as for your statement about IRC not existing in 2000, and the statement in the Osram manual quoted above: So far as I know, the melting point of tungsten has not changed in the last 6 years. Short of changing filament materials, it still holds true, regardless of what coating you put in the lamp.

Yes, the filament will produce light at a lower power level, but not THAT much light.

Bill


----------



## Luna (Mar 19, 2006)

bwaites said:


> The technology doesn't exist, or someone would be using it. Don't you think a 50-100% increase in efficiency would be exploitable? It would essentially halve the cost of lighting using incandescent lamps!!! If it was out there, it would be being used!!



It depends on the cost of delivery. If the unit cost of each bulb exceed that of a fluorescent, then why attempt? They already have a great energy distribution and cost per lumen is great when realized over a period of time.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 19, 2006)

Luna,

I agree, but no fluorescent is compact enough to use in small apps, like headlights, flashlights, etc. Nor can they be focused as easily as incans, such as when used for spotlights on paintings, etc. 

Think how much less heat production would exist in museum and gallery settings if you could get that output with less energy consumed!

Bill


----------



## Luna (Mar 19, 2006)

bwaites said:


> Not difficult to understand at all, but is it difficult to understand that if you drive the filament harder, by adding energy either from reflected IR or more electricity, that the filament vaporizes?
> Bill



That is why he suggests the usage of a filament that is rated for the higher output. It takes a moment longer to come to temperature but energy that is normally IR will be reused and increase the visible output.


----------



## Luna (Mar 19, 2006)

bwaites said:


> Luna,
> 
> I agree, but no fluorescent is compact enough to use in small apps, like headlights, flashlights, etc. Nor can they be focused as easily as incans, such as when used for spotlights on paintings, etc.
> 
> ...



I have high hopes for the usage of TIR (or other techniques like whispering gallery mode devices) in the incandescent arena, where filament size isn't the factor in colmination ability. If this fails, hopefully that is where LEDs will mature and fill in the gap.


----------



## Spacemarine (Mar 19, 2006)

bwaites: It takes me a lot of time to write my postings because on the one hand I'm not a native english speaker, and on the other hand I think a lot about the stuff I'm going to write, check if everything is correct and logical.

But you keep writing the same things again and again, without reading my posts carefully. You say something, even if I prooved you wrong a few posts before. Then you make claims that you can't back up. Please show me one post of mine where I made such a claim!

I'm feeling that I'm wasting my energy here with you, that's why I'm no longer respondig to your posts. Sorry.


----------



## Spacemarine (Mar 19, 2006)

jtr1962 said:


> Actually, as filament temperature increases a greater percentage of the radiated energy is in the UV range.


That's true. But the amount of UV radiation even very close to the melting point is so small compared to the amount of IR radiation, that we can completely ignore it.

Here's a graph showing it:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Planksche_strahlungsformel.png

Tugston is melting at 3695 K (3422 °C, 6192 °F). I know that tungston isn't a black body and that therefore the colourtemperature doesen't match exactly the bodytemperature, but they are closely together.



jtr1962 said:


> Another thing is the IR coatings probably mostly reflect deep IR because a coating which also reflected near IR would likely block some visible light as well.


Not neccessarily. These filters can have very sharp cut-offs!

Here's a graph from Osram, showing the reflectivity of the IRC coating over the wavelength:
http://www.sylvania.com/content/display.scfx?id=003678795


----------



## davidefromitaly (Mar 19, 2006)

please someone can calculate the output of the osram halostar starlite (not IRC) 64458S at 20V?

at 12V is 90W, 1800 lumens, 4000hr

at 20V?


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 19, 2006)

throwing the lumen increase into the formulas.. to achieve 2.5x an 11.4V lumen output requires 14.81V (3.7/cell).. and would be 36.3 L/W.. definitely in the normal range of things.. the output of 4.6x would require 17.63 or 3.53V/cell straight from the formula.. however at 3.8V/cell the % increase from the underdrive of an estimated 752BL at 3 cell calculates to 2.74 and 5.98x the output.. or 78% of the calculated increase of 19.0V.

unfortuantely without exact power readings and a 'baseline' (set the bulb to rated voltage, and also measure current there).. take the no reflector 1m lux readings.. hard to get the estimates. 

I think i have a bulb or two on my way and i'll be able to do some experiments to get some more exact data on the table. 

It's hard to get a handle on exactly what goes into the 37/42 L/W figure.. It does seem to me that there is a good chance that IRC will affect that rating.. with this logic. 

The maximum lumen per watt we are used to has a direct correlation to the steady state of how much heat is put into the filament to keep it at temperature vs how much leaves.. with the technology we are used to, that has worked out to roughly 37 Lumens per watt... however let's take a for example:'

It is safe to assume that the heat on the filament keeps the temperature steady-state.. and there is an equilbrium reached else the filament will cool or melt.

In a quick little study of the 1111 lamp.. driven to 7.2V it will output 880BL.. consume 26.7W doing so.. and that's 33.0 L/W. 

now.. increase the heat retention with IRC.. so that it takes 95% of the power normally consumed at 7.2V.. it re-rates to 6.96V and 25.3W.. and 34.8 L/W. 

If the heat retention get you 10% savings.. the new values: 6.73, 24W, 36.7. 

now let's try to get to 55 L/W.. 

to get 55 L/W from the 1111 lamp.. you would need to get the same heat to the filament with 60% of the power going in.. should it be possible to reflect enough IR heat back with the IRC that it takes 60% of the energy steady-state to get the same visible light emission, than you aren't breaking any laws of tungsten melting physics.. because the tunsten is just being heated to the same temperature, it just is not pumping so much waste energy into the air as IR.. 

That percentage gain does not seem likely to me, although it does seem clear to me that there is some obvious gain to the IRC, and it does also seem to me that it messes with the L/W barrier because that barrier is about NET power to the filament with the normal IR losses factored in. With less IR losses, you will have the same power to the filament, keeping it hotter with less power in to the lamp and that will give you more Lumen for the same power.. it doesn't change the physics around the limitations of the tungsten, but should show a definite boost in the L/W since the 'W' in that case is NOT the watt on the filament.. it's the watts input into the bulb. 

So.. only actual testing will show what the story is with these cute little bulbs.. it would not surprise me to see numbers in the low 40s if they pulled off something really decent in the reflective coating.. it can be considered obvious there is some L/W impact with the coating or they would have scrapped the project before coming to market, there can be no other consideration other than that figure to make it a viable consideration to market.. 'efficicient' means 'L/W'. 

consider this.. using the numbers from dave f i

3 cell: 34.5 L/W
4 cell: 34.9 L/W
5 cell: 44.5 L/W

i don't think it is too unreasonable to considering the possibility that the 40 L/W barrier has been broken. not likely shattered like originally thought (60), but possibly a solid improvement.

-awr


----------



## davidefromitaly (Mar 19, 2006)

davidefromitaly said:


> please someone can calculate the output of the osram halostar starlite (not IRC) 64458S at 20V?
> 
> at 12V is 90W, 1800 lumens, 4000hr
> 
> at 20V?




please andrew... do that for me


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 19, 2006)

from osram's own literature, they claim 35% more efficiency.. not too far off from my 40% estimations above.. i would not be too surprised to find over-driven efficacies nearly 45-47 L/W.. with a 4000 lamp life and the CCT that goes with it.. serious over-driving would be required to make them 'look pretty' as bill pointed out.. they will look very orange compared to what we are used to.. but the numbers worked out reaaallly good for direct-driving the lamps from a 12-pack of batteries.. over 1000L out the front from a light that fits in a 3D host.. color temp suffers.. i will be looking into a way to use the lamp for sure. 

DFI.. the numbers you seek:
18V, 9.69A, 174W, 7440/4836L, 42 L/W (i wouldn't expect them to be quite that high).. and 30.8hr bulb life.. the problem in 'our world' of flashlights is how to host somethign at voltages much over 12 or 14V. 

-awr


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 19, 2006)

Oh.. i wanted to add something i missed earlier.. 

florescent lighting is the 'bane' of the lighting world.. it sucks in pretty much every possible way.. if it didn't suck so bad, we wouldn't be having this conversation because there would be no point in improving incandescent. 

halogen lighting blows away flourescent, period.. people only use FL because it's cheaper, and sometimes because it's cooler, but mostly cheaper is the only reason the technology exists. I get a headache almost instantly from FL. lighting.. it does have a nice side-effect of having no shadow with the 4' or 8' tubes.. i'll take the shadows over the headaches. 

IRC was developed because people prefer halogen to flourescent.. even IRC doesn't touch FL for efficiency, probably 1/2 as efficient, so where's the logic? 

I agree that things will be leaning toward LED taking over lighting, but maybe never incan.. LED 'feels' like FL.. it will take over the FL market as it becomes more cost effective to use LED vs FL.. but the shops that really want their stuff to sell will use lighting that makes it look better and for now that is halogen lighting! 

-awr


----------



## davidefromitaly (Mar 19, 2006)

andrewwynn said:


> DFI.. the numbers you seek:
> 18V, 9.69A, 174W, 7440/4836L, 42 L/W (i wouldn't expect them to be quite that high).. and 30.8hr bulb life.. the problem in 'our world' of flashlights is how to host somethign at voltages much over 12 or 14V.




ok 42lm/w at 18v (also if i ask you 20V), impossible for somebody  but is a simple bulb that cost 2$ here... 

now if IRC allow to drive the filament at the same temp with only 70% of the 174W? 174*0.7=122W

122W for 7740 lumens = 63 lm/w 

the same IRC bulb is rated at 1750 lumens instead of 1800, maybe the little loss is due the IR filter (both have a UV filter), but still remain at 61 lm/w

now i hope is clear to all


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 19, 2006)

the logic is fairly solid.. the problem is that the output will not scale that high up with overdrive.. the efficiency will go down, just like with the earlier examples of your measured output.. where what should have been the output from 17.5V or so took 19.0V for example.. however.. just going strictly from what we know with 'about 35' being the highest in the lamps we over drive as the efficacy.. if the overdrive can be applied and the IRC efficiency sticks close to 30% that means 50 L/W which is a substantial gain in output. I will so some solid testing on these lamps and report back the findings for sure. If only they made the IRC with 6V or 7.2V or 9.6V lamps, so they would find convienent hosts. 

Although.. i could make a 21.6V pack without too much difficulty. hmmm. 12AA LiONs series-parallel. Time for some good ol experimentation. 

-awr


----------



## chrwe (Mar 19, 2006)

bwaites said:


> That is all we are saying. IF it gets hotter than the maximum of 42 Lumens/watt, it will melt.


 

If there is the restriction of tungsten melting at 42 Lumens/Watt I totally agree with bwaites.

Let's say we have a filament that delivers N Lumens/Watt -- no wait, N is not enough, it delivers K Lumens/Watt. Put K=42 if you like.
We now drive it at .8 Watts from the batteries.
It will give some amount of Lumens 'L' where 'L' is a function of power 'P' which is .8 Watts atm.
Let's say all we know is dL/dP > 0 and L(1W)=K Lumens.
Therefore L(.8W) < K Lumens.
Now we get an additional .2 Watts from the reflector to the filament.
So it's driven at 1 Watt and we get L(1W) = K Lumens.
Did it's efficiency increase? No! It still gives K Lumens at 1 Watt.
Did the 'battery efficiency' increase? Yes! While the batteries continue to deliver .8 Watts we now get K Lumens!
So we use less _power from the batteries_ to get light for 1 Watt because we reuse some power that has not been converted to visible light yet.

So 60 lm/W is just not possible if tungsten melts at 42 Lumen/Watt. However sixty Lumens per _battery watt_ cannot be ruled out by me.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Mar 19, 2006)

ok i'm waiting for your tests.

a mag 4D can accept 20 14500 li-ion batts, 5 packs of 4 cells in parallel, same brightness of a 35W hid in a smaller case 

chrwe: i'm agree that tungsten melt at 3695°K and is impossible to go over this limit.

but if there is a technology that allow me to maintain the same filament temperature with 35% less power the efficiency of the whole lamp is more. ok?

for me isn't correct to say lm/w if you refer only to the filament. you must say lm/k (k like temperature in degrees)

if i can obtain the same temp with only one watt for example... the efficiency is much higher


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 19, 2006)

andrewwynn said:


> florescent lighting is the 'bane' of the lighting world.. it sucks in pretty much every possible way.. if it didn't suck so bad, we wouldn't be having this conversation because there would be no point in improving incandescent.


Trust me-incandescent development is dead or close to it at this point as bwaites also said. LED will be able to do every incandescent can do, with less energy, and eventually cheaper. It can be dimmed, it can be focused, it can be made to duplicate any type of spectrum including incandescent, etc.



> halogen lighting blows away flourescent, period.. people only use FL because it's cheaper, and sometimes because it's cooler, but mostly cheaper is the only reason the technology exists. I get a headache almost instantly from FL. lighting.. it does have a nice side-effect of having no shadow with the 4' or 8' tubes.. i'll take the shadows over the headaches.


Not everyone agrees with your assertion. My own order of preference is sunlight-full-spectrum fluorescent-white LED-regular fluorescent-halogen-regular incandescent. Headaches are caused by flicker from magnetic ballasts, and also by the really awful CRI 60 cool white tubes used in far too many places. Such tubes are actually outlawed in several European countries because they're considered unhealthful. For what it's worth, I get awful migraines under incandescent light and especially candlelight, in addition to under the type of fluoro lighting I just mentioned. If we ever want to develop an ideal light source, it would likely strive to match sunlight since that's just about everyone's first choice. With LEDs, that will certainly be possible.



> IRC was developed because people prefer halogen to flourescent.. even IRC doesn't touch FL for efficiency, probably 1/2 as efficient, so where's the logic?


IRC was developed mainly for the automotive industry where it was desired to get more light for less energy because the electrical system was rapidly being overtaxed by the plethora of electrical devices being added to cars. Just look at Orsam's catalog. Those are all low-voltage automotive type lamps, not common 120 VAC household lamps. IRC lamps and incandescent in general will be obsolete as soon as LEDs match them in output and cost (might take a few more years).



> I agree that things will be leaning toward LED taking over lighting, but maybe never incan.. LED 'feels' like FL.. it will take over the FL market as it becomes more cost effective to use LED vs FL.. but the shops that really want their stuff to sell will use lighting that makes it look better and for now that is halogen lighting!


RGB LED really brings out the color of things (not like fluoro at all), and want to know why some shops use halogen? The reason is because it's a point source, so it brings out the sparkle in jewelry and such. LEDs are also a point source, and can be made to bring out the sparkle and duplicate sunlight more closely. In fact, I see quite a few shops using Solux type lighting, so I must be on to something about the higher CCT making products look appealing. Sure, gemstones look flat and lifeless under diffuse fluorescent lighting but that's always been both a drawback as well as an advantage of fluorescent. There really isn't yet one perfect light source. I'm betting LED will come close to that ideal.

And the main impetus behind all this government funded LED research is precisely to replace incandescents first. That's long been a stated goal since we can avoid building a few dozen new power plants by getting people to replace their incandescents with LEDs which will offer a 10-fold efficiency increase.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Mar 19, 2006)

i see now that osram have different datas from welch allyn for overdrive bulbs...

osram say:

5% more voltage
3% more current
8% more power
15% more lumens
2% more color temp
half lamp life

WA say:

2.5% more current
7.6% more power
20% more lumens
54% of the original lamp life


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 19, 2006)

Returning to the original problem, if they claim 50 watts of light with 35 watts of power, then the IR coating at the rated power is reflecting back 15 of the 35 watts used to power the lamp, or about 43% of the filament's total emissions. The remainder of the power is escaping as either light or heat.

Now consider what happens when we overdrive the lamp. Remember that the IR coating reflected back about 43% of the filament's emissions at rated power. Based on Osram's document, it appears the IR coating reflects back ~70% of the radiation in the area from 800 nm to 2000 nm. At 3000K roughly two-thirds of the filament's radiation falls in this area. Now when we go close to the melting point of the filament, say 3600K, only perhaps 40% of the radiated energy falls in the area reflected by the IR coating, and since the coating reflects back about 70%, then only roughly 28% of the power put into the lamp is reflected back. In other words, you're getting 128 watts of output with only 100 watts of input. Now if 3600K would give ~36 lm/w in a regular lamp, you might get about 45 or 46 lm/w in a lamp with an IR coating but that's it. So I'll surmise that it is possible to get above the 42 lm/W mentioned as the theoretical maximum for a tungsten filament, but 60 lm/W is no way possible. And note that the mid-40s efficiency comes at the expense of lamp life measured in minutes so it's at best a theoretical exercise of little practical value. The best we can do with incandescent efficiency-wise while still having lamp life of 1000 hours or more is probably in the low 30s.


----------



## tvodrd (Mar 19, 2006)

42 L/W. :thinking: Life, The Universe, and Everything!  Interesting read!

Larry


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 20, 2006)

I had a whole big reply that got eaten by the server being busy grrrrr.. 

The summary of which was.. using osram's estimate of 35% cost savings (of energy).. and the current limit of 37 L/W it would get you to 57 L/W and being very safe to assume that the efficiency of the IRC will go down with overdrive and as the filament output shifts more into visible and out of IR, trying with 30% you'd be at 53 and with 25% you'd be at 49.33. 

Knowing this.. it is not 'unbelievable' that pushed hard enough some of these lamps could get very close to 50 L/W.. but that there is very little chance of breaking the 57 figure, but i would have no problem with that. 

If i had to pull a number out of my hat, i would say that pushed to extreme (30 lamp hours or less) it could be very likely these lamps will be in the mid 40s.

It will take some pretty extreme overdrive to get there.. 18-20v but they can take it. 

So.. a light, albeit with a little more orange in the output, but the size of a typical Mag85 with 20-30% more light with more runtime, that is a worthy cause of exploration.. not to mention 400+ hr vs 8 hr bulb life and no regulation needed to save from instaflash. 

So.. i will get some bulbs and do some serious objective testing and get to the bottom of what they actually will pull in terms of L/W and the real-world use applications and implications.

In the end.. if it mathematically worked out to 57% before factoring in real-world losses, somebody excitedly posting 60 L/W is not all that out-of-order.. it's that kind of excitement that will try to push things to future improvements. 

Considering that i get at least 30W of waste heat out the BACK of my 100W lamps... if all that heat was turned into LIGHT instead using whatever kind of recovery process (maybe using the likes of a heat-junction to turn that back into electricity)... and keeping the light filament hot with 30% less power.. there is some possibility of improved output in the L/W figure for sure. 

Now, imagine if the UV energy also was able to be recovered, perhaps with some magic UV collection system and turned back into electricity.. perhaps a lens on the front of a flashlight that filters uv but turns it into electricity rather than heat.. of course these are theoretical concepts.. but with efficiencies probably in the 10% figure for turning heat into light.. getting to 20% would mean a 100% increase in efficiency! 

-awr


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 20, 2006)

andrewwynn said:


> If i had to pull a number out of my hat, i would say that pushed to extreme (30 lamp hours or less) it could be very likely these lamps will be in the mid 40s.


And I reached the same conclusion two posts up in a slightly more rigorous fashion. The 42 lm/W limit isn't set in stone. It's based on how much a tungsten filament radiates near its melting point in a vacuum. Now if some of the energy is reflected back, you can of course keep it at the same temperature with less power. This is actually quite similar to the greenhouse effect which keeps the Earth's temperature warm enough so that we have liquid water in most places. Without the atmosphere reflecting back some IR, the Earth's surface would average something like 220K (-63°F).


----------



## davidefromitaly (Mar 20, 2006)

ok i do a bet 

if andrew read 60lm/w (or more) at 20V with the IRC 35W or 65W (not the 25 or 50W) the guys that doubt about that pay me a pizza


----------



## Luna (Mar 20, 2006)

davidefromitaly said:


> ok i'm waiting for your tests.
> chrwe: i'm agree that tungsten melt at 3695°K and is impossible to go over this limit.



You can go higher,but it requires a containment envelope.



AWR said:


> florescent lighting is the 'bane' of the lighting world.. it sucks in pretty much every possible way.. if it didn't suck so bad, we wouldn't be having this conversation because there would be no point in improving incandescent.



Your forget that we are the fringe group here. When you start looking at the real world. Try lighting a 30story building with 100w bulbs then do the same with 4foot tubes. 

LEDs?? Ok so the current color mix doesn't do it for you. They can tune LEDs emissions to any color you like  I had hopes that this was what Surefire was doing with the Kroma/DARPA but it ofcourse turned out to be just a A2 of sorts. I guess this hope will have to be realized in my own design. 





*At to the initial subject:*

The mistake here is that people are scaling the effciency curve of the IRC independently from that of the lamp itself. Also ,OSRAM states that a "max of 35%" is capable so base lines shouldn't assume 35% but rather closer to 25%.


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 20, 2006)

I think that'd be a very fair bet. If i wanted to win in that bet i would stay with 50 or less, because i think that 50 has a possibility, my math showed 57 to be the max. theoretical number. (still would be completely awesome). I will do the measurements and just report the facts. 

I have done LED tuning myself, mixing amber with 3 whites, it looked just like an incandescent.. it still only output about 1/10th the luminous flux of an incan in the same space... it took 4 emitters to approach 1/6 th the output of my high-power maglight mods. Housings for many more emitters costs money.. more than the cost of electricity was my point earlier. Most high-end LED lighting is still hovering in the 20-25 L/W range which is right where these IRC lamps are w/o overdrive. However.. you can put 65W into ONE of these lamps (double with overdrive) where in a single emitter you can put about FIVE watts.. LED replacement lighting is a long way off, especially when you consider with floursecent lights in the 50 to 80 L/W range, but in-addition you can put in 40+W into a very large tube and get the flux spread out over a big area. there is a very good reason they use FL tubes where they need lots of light. Eventually when it works out that LED saves money in a shorter turnaround than the typical 10 to 15 yrs it takes now... when it gets to 1 to 2 yrs before break-even, there will be a mass transition from FL to LED and i'll be a happy camper when it happens because LED lighting is nicer when done right, even than incan because as you said you can mix n match colors since you need to use many more sources to achieve the lumen output of incan. 

I was disappointed in the lack of 'real' color mixing with the Kroma.. a light similar but with 3 different LUX emitters that could be independently adjusted in output would be ideal. I have played with mixing white and amber and it's stunning now beutiful the light came out. LUMILED has a warm white color but it's too low, like 3000K or something.. I want to see something closer to 3500K, maybe 3400K. 

In the summary.. i don't think that within a decade LED lighting can get even up to 1/4 of the luminous flux of an incandescent filament, which puts LED into the 'flood' vs 'spot' lighting category.. useful for a lot of things, but incan will still be the way to go for a lot of light from a single point, and a spot of light that can output not only 45 L/W but from that spot can be injected 100+W for 4500BL.. compare to an LED that perhaps in 10 yrs will be up to 100L/W but you can put in 10W... or 1000EL... it takes 4.5x as many lamps to achieve the same amount of light. Today you can probably get 5000 to 8000L from 100W with tube flourescent.. double to triple what you'll get from the IRC bulbs w/o overdrive... there is no surprise why we use FL lighting in big buildings! I can see a point in about 4-5 yrs where LED will get to 60 L/W for real and that puts it 'in league' with flourescent .. and when you factor in the longer lamp life, even with needing many more lamps (probably on the order of 3-5x as many).. it will only take 4-5 yrs to have a return on investment.. and that's what will be the deciding factor.. the reasonable ROI. 

A lot of people are just now starting to switch to LED, especially in the use of traffic lighting, but even in homes with LED replacement lamps that screw right into mains powered lighting.. they are faaaar more expensive than incan or CF.. and compared with CF, cost more to operate, but should last longer, so maybe a ROI of 5-10 yrs. Considering you can probably run the incan light for 5-10 yrs including replacements for the cost difference of plugging in an LED replacement.. the benefit is that you are spending your $ to possibly put less damage into the environment (i say possibly because i don't know how damaging the processes are of making the LED light). 

also back to the original subject.. agree with Luna here.. that the IRC efficiency is surely going to not stick at 35% as the light is overdriven.. but even 25% is a really nice boost.. consider if a mega-high-power flashlight can go 25 minutes vs 20 minutes with the same power plant but just a different bulb.. that's pretty cool. 

-awr


----------



## chrwe (Mar 20, 2006)

davidefromitaly said:


> chrwe: i'm agree that tungsten melt at 3695°K and is impossible to go over this limit.
> but if there is a technology that allow me to maintain the same filament temperature with 35% less power the efficiency of the whole lamp is more. ok?



You cannot maintain the same filament temperature with less power. You just don't source all the power from the batteries.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Mar 20, 2006)

chrwe said:


> You cannot maintain the same filament temperature with less power. You just don't source all the power from the batteries.




ok now i do a "extreme" example:

imagine that i take the filament from a 12v 90w lamp and put it into a ceramic bulb (or another good heat insulator).

how many power you think i need for heat up it at 3500K?

muuuuuuch less than 90W right?

ok don't emit any light cause ceramic isn't transparent but within the ceramic bulb the filament is bright like every filament at 3500K

so if this IRC bulbs can do a little heat insulation i can't belive why you are so sceptical


----------



## Luna (Mar 20, 2006)

chrwe said:


> You cannot maintain the same filament temperature with less power. You just don't source all the power from the batteries.




Sure you can. It just require less energy loss from the system. The dichromic IRC coating is just a jacket if you will.


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 20, 2006)

exactly.. and that's a great example about a ceramic envelope.. it would take like 10W at most to keep that filament at 3500K with the right insulation.. you'd just have to be very small and have a very good suit on to experience it. 

This is literally a cause of saving some of the waste heat and keeping it inside.. should the filter get better and hold in more of the IR, the efficiency by definition will go up.. at this point with the 35% savings already.. what that means is not that they get 50+L/W but that they get 26 L/W at rated output where they would be getting 19.25 L/W without the IRC. What DFI has proposed and tested was cranking up the overdrive to extreme on those bulbs to get them up above the previously considered maximum of 37L/W practical limit... which i believe absolutely was done.. I'm betting that at least 45 L/W is achievable and will be doing experiments to test just how close to 50 L/W can be achieved with these lamps (since the range should be between 50 and 57.. using a 25 to 35% heat retention of the coating). 

-awr


----------



## bwaites (Mar 21, 2006)

Something is up with the measurements.

I'm beginning to believe that the lightboxes and the meters simply cannot handle the high outputs and give spurious readings.

Another CPF'er is reporting similar Lumen/watt readings when overdriving a 150 Watt lamp, so there is definitely something out of the norms.

My guesses, and as has been pointed out, I have no REAL reason to suspect any of these, as I am just a "know nothing"!

1) Meter design. (Most of the meters, if not all of them, that we use were designed for ambient light in an industrial facility, not direct beam or environment saturated light levels, like in a light box.)
2) Formula error. At low levels the formulas may work, but have an increasingly wide error at higher levels. (We know, for instance, that calculating outputs from baseline becomes unrealistic past 10-20% overdrives.)

Bill


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 21, 2006)

That's why i've been saying i don't expect to see over 50 L/W when actually measured. The lightbox contraptions should work absolutely fine for estimating lumen compared to a known source.. taking a direct reading of a bulb (no reflector) also will get a pretty decent relative lumen value, the problem is with the reference.. it has to be calibrated with a known bulb at a known voltage, for example run an 1185 lamp at 9.6V and use that as your reference... now overdrive it to 11.1V and verify the formula is working at least within some margin of error.. now you have a 'system' of measurement. 

When i do the measurements, rest assured there will be some well thought out logic to make the readings work. Every time i've done the relative brightness shots they come in with numbers matching the expected values.. i.e. the last one i did compared the mag138 to the Mag625.. i got 1650lux with the Mag138 and 1850 with BOTH of the Mag625s.. since the mag 138 probably is about 2400-2500L and the Mag625 is about 2700-2800L.. those 'bounce' numbers are exactly in-line with expecations... this has always worked out to be the case, other than being surprised that LED numbers come out higher than expected because the bulb/torch ratio is higher than with incan.. i haven't figured out what that ratio is yet. 

In this particular case it would seem that the initial estimations were just 'somewhat' off rather than 'gross errors' and had more to do with making a couple assumptions like the wattage scaling with voltage and estimated Vlamp vs measured. Taking a couple small errors and multiplying them would get what i would estimate to be in the mid to high 40s into that magical 60 mentioned in the first post of this thread.. it's not a gross error more than a multiplication of several small ones. It would not surprise me if the theoretical max of 57 L/W became 50.0 since 49 was the theoretical practical max if the IRC saves 25% of the input energy. 

-awr


----------



## js (Mar 21, 2006)

*re-thinking* :thinking:


----------



## Luna (Mar 21, 2006)

bwaites said:


> Something is up with the measurements.
> I'm beginning to believe that the lightboxes and the meters simply cannot handle the high outputs and give spurious readings.



I wouldn't be surprised. 

2 possible errors:

1) as you say, overload. Nonlinearities of the the sensor at high levels
In the past I suggested a filter of know loss (neutral density 50% for instance) be used 

2) Assumption that the near field with diffusion is representative . Pop-off the diffusion dome of the sensor and you can see a hot spot from the really bright lights if you gaze thru it. Defocus the light and remeaure or use ND filter



I always felt that if you didn't have to worry about overloading the sensor, you could just put the light directly on the dome to measure relative output. Fortunately we don't have to worry about 4pi space.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 21, 2006)

As I see it, here is the problem:

The IRC bulbs are rated for long life, not high output. 

High output lamps are designed to produce more light, thus have shorter lives since the filament is being stressed more.

So you can have long life or bright light, right?

Now, lets take a lamp rated for reasonable life. 

We'll use the 64625, a 12 volt lamp rated at 50 hours, I believe.

It is very bright, producing 4000 or so lumens when driven and 13.2 volts, a 10% overdrive. It has a neglible lifespan at this overdrive level, but an output of nearly 41 Lumens/watt, near the theoretical limits.

But that means the filament is on the verge of vaporization.

Now add in a 15% increase in filament temp by adding an IR shield and the resultant increase in filament temp will cause the filament to go POOF, won't it?

Now the IRC filaments are meant for long life, not high output, but it is the same material, right? So as you raise the temp, more light is produced, but you still reach that temp where the filament says, POOF, and is gone.

The temp required for maximum production is still the same. And it doesn't matter how thick you make the filament, it is still going to get so hot that it goes POOF when it reaches that point, right?

Bill


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 21, 2006)

bwaites said:


> Now add in a 15% increase in filament temp by adding an IR shield and the resultant increase in filament temp will cause the filament to go POOF, won't it?
> Bill



Absolutely correct.. but the thing is that the drive level is LOWER, not that the filament temp is higher.. me thinks that's a source of confusion on this thread.. it's not about getting the filament to output more lumens.. it's about generating the same lumens with less power input by saving some of the waste heat and putting it back inside.

-awr


----------



## davidefromitaly (Mar 21, 2006)

andrewwynn said:


> Absolutely correct.. but the thing is that the drive level is LOWER, not that the filament temp is higher.. me thinks that's a source of confusion on this thread.. it's not about getting the filament to output more lumens.. it's about generating the same lumens with less power input by saving some of the waste heat and putting it back inside.
> 
> -awr




agree with andrew 

bwaites: try to imagine the 64625 filament that output 4000 lumens with 30% less power. this mean more efficiency.

i'm the first to say that if the 64625 have a 4000 lm limit the IRC technology don't allow to have more lumens.

the IRC technology allow to have the same lumens but with less power.

infact the 65W IRC have a 90W filament, the 50W IRC a 75W filament, the 35W IRC a 50W filament.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 21, 2006)

Andrew,

Understood, but you still are seeking max lumens, so if you want to achieve that, you have to take the filament to max.

Reverse it, use the 64625, and drop the voltage 15% so that the filament is cooler, then add the heat back in from the IR coating. Now you are at the same filament temp and getting the same output, right? (Assuming best case and that all of the IR is used to heat the filament and none is lost.)

Assuming current remains the same, you are at about 11.4 volts and still putting out 4000 lumens. So 11.4 X 8.78 = 99.2 watts or 4000/99.2 = 40.3 Lumens/watt.

Let's assume the max 35% improvement. (And I know this is a huge assumption, I'm assuming that 100% of the energy reduction will be returned by the IR coating and we know that is not only unlikely, but impossible.) 

Then the voltage would be 8.6 and the current flow the same (I know, it would have to go up, but lets just leave it and see) 4000/75 = 53.3 Lumens/watt, closer, but still not in the ball park. 

I realize that current might change some, and that these are very rough numbers, but even so, you just can't get to that efficiency level. 

Bill


----------



## Delvance (Mar 21, 2006)

Bill, that's just using the 64625 lamp as an example though. Perhaps these IRC coated lamps have a more efficient filament as well ? Which would then increase the lumens/W. That said, i personally don't think it'd be near 60lumens/watt but i'd love to be proven wrong  .

But i guess you can argue if the IRC coated lamps do have a more efficient filament, this advantage would be offset by your example's use of 100% return of energy assumption anyways.

60 lumens/watt just seems too high for the time being. If it was indeed capable at this time, i would've expected a major lighting company to at least announce it if not make a specialised product (eg military applications) out of it.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 21, 2006)

But that's just it. The 64625 is about as efficient a filament as you can make. It is the brightest 12 volt filament around. At 13.2 volts, it has a minimal life because the filament is so close to vaporization 

The IRC filaments are all designed to be run at 12 volts, but don't come close to the efficiency at 12 volts that the 64625 makes, so you have to give them more power to make them glow brighter. However, as you raise the power, and thus the temp, they still approach that melting point long before they get to the 60 Lumens/watt efficiency.

I used the 64625 because it is the most efficient of the 12 volt lamps as it is. 

Bill


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 21, 2006)

what bill said about the 625 being on the absolute fringe edge of efficiency.. and not in disagreement with the likelihood of 53 being the new upper max.. testing will show how close we are to getting that estimation correct. 

You made a mistake in your calculations/estimations, bill.. current and voltage are both less.. but we don't know the formulas for calculating just what they will be.. so we don't know what current, voltage, lumen, CCT would end up being.. that's part of the problem.. trying to figure out how we can meld the current set of equations to work out with the IRC.. part of what i hope to achieve with doing the testing.. i'm hoping there will be a linear or some other simple curve to relate the IRC.. I will definitely try to figure out what formula to use since clearly the current formula doesn't work directly.. with any luck just tweaking the exponent base value or modifying with a linear depreciation... in any event i'll figure out something that is closer than what we have now. 

For now.. with my estimations.. i have been using 35 depreciation in HEAT = power when driven at the power levels the IRC lamps are designed to be used.. It might be as simple as reducing the power by 35% before working the equation and putting it back on to figure out what the effective power is at a new level. 

Dang i have to mention that the 625 lamp really is awesome.. my fav. light now is the Mag625.. have two of them.. the 4D LiON model and the 3D 11xGP2000 model.. i have to 'cheat' to get the 4D to work.. i drop about .7V on a resistor in the tailcap to help reduce the heat load on the FET (it can take it but it will overhead the driver a little too fast and start cycling power). 

lol.. when i ran the 625 at a regulated 12.9V, it lasted for one cycle of the batteries... so 13.2 is definitely pushing it. The formula doesn't work for life span on the 625.. there is something amis considering the 138 has a lot more overhead for overdrive but has exactly the same life rating (maybe i have the wrong numbers and the 138 is 50 and the 625 is 25? ). .that would esplain' it. 

-awr


----------



## Luna (Mar 21, 2006)

bwaites said:


> I realize that current might change some, and that these are very rough numbers, but even so, you just can't get to that efficiency level.




Maybe it is still possible (ok closer to the unrealistic 60lu/w) but not in the way we are utilizing it. The IRC coating creates what is effectively a tuned optical cavity with incoherent emissions in the visible spectrum

This mean that we should be able to bring the filament up to temp and drop the power and maintain a good deal of output over a period greater than we see with a conventional setup. So if this is truly the case, and I would assume it is, then PWM might allow for a more efficient usage of the bulb. It would probably take a thicker IRC to be optimal but it should be so.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 21, 2006)

They are both right on the edge.

BUT...I thought resistance in the filament rose with temperature, and if the temp is the same, wouldn't the current required to drive it be the same? Or is it a function of the voltage as well?

AND...I used the exact same reduction in power as I used in increase in heat secondary to the IRC coating to counter that guesstimation anyway. We all know that there is no way it is close to the same!

Either way, the testing will be interesting!!

Bill


----------



## Luna (Mar 21, 2006)

andrewwynn said:


> Absolutely correct.. but the thing is that the drive level is LOWER, not that the filament temp is higher.. me thinks that's a source of confusion on this thread.. it's not about getting the filament to output more lumens.. it's about generating the same lumens with less power input by saving some of the waste heat and putting it back inside.
> 
> -awr




Or drive level is the same and the filament size is greater (and typically more surface area).


----------



## Luna (Mar 21, 2006)

bwaites said:


> They are both right on the edge.
> 
> BUT...I thought resistance in the filament rose with temperature, and if the temp is the same, wouldn't the current required to drive it be the same? Or is it a function of the voltage as well?
> 
> Bill



If you are assuming the same filament size, yes. Your can find the eq that I posted in one of our unproductive threads to see the deltaT vs resistance change. So you have to increase the filament size or lover the voltage.

However if you add the IRC to the the 625 and drive it at the same levels, you would have nil for lifespan. If you underdrive it so that the temp is the same as before the IRC (PWM or decrease the Voltage), you still have the same life and output as the original 625, just lower power input.

Lamp life is a function of temperature (vapor pressure), not power. This is why the resistance calc from temp is necessary, std rerating formulas assume std envelopes with std transmission.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 21, 2006)

And that was my point with the '625. If the most efficient of the 12 volt lights won't come close, why should any of the others?

Bill


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 22, 2006)

I'm sure a lot of trial and error went into figureing out what filaments would work well with the IRC situation.. it is true that resistance would not match what it used to be when changing to a different voltage, but until testing is done, just 'what' it changes too.. i would have no guess. I'm sure that at a lower drive voltage that the current will also be somewhat reduced, but maybe not (most likely not) proportionally.. i.e. the drive current would be higher than normally necessary for the voltage since the filament temp would be higher than normal at that voltage. 

-awr


----------



## Handlobraesing (Mar 22, 2006)

andrewwynn said:


> Oh.. i wanted to add something i missed earlier..
> 
> florescent lighting is the 'bane' of the lighting world.. it sucks in pretty much every possible way.. if it didn't suck so bad, we wouldn't be having this conversation because there would be no point in improving incandescent.



Non-sense.



> halogen lighting blows away flourescent, period.. people only use FL because it's cheaper, and sometimes because it's cooler, but mostly cheaper is the only reason the technology exists. I get a headache almost instantly from FL. lighting.. it does have a nice side-effect of having no shadow with the 4' or 8' tubes.. i'll take the shadows over the headaches.



Fluorescent lamps come in many variety, ranging from 2,700K to 6,500K and even outside that range for specialized applications and CRI from low 50's to high 90's. 

When people say "the fluorescent type" they more often than not mean 4100K, 62 CRI cool white that has been around since the 1950's which was operated on a magnetic ballast. Today, many installations use 4100K(this is a matter of choice) 85 CRI lamps operated on an electronic ballast. Actually, the old 40W cool white lamps are banned, because they are inefficient compared to newer types. 

Benefits:
Well diffused light
20,000+ hours of average life
High efficacy
Moderate initial cost

Cost means a great deal in world. Do you realize how much it would cost in maintenance and energy cost in institutions, offices and stores if they used halogen lamps? Most of the cost is for energy, so the additional side-harm besides cost is environmental impact. Would you prefer halogen if it cuts $150,000 into the profit each year? I doubt it.




> IRC was developed because people prefer halogen to flourescent.. even IRC doesn't touch FL for efficiency, probably 1/2 as efficient, so where's the logic?



IRC is used to improve efficiency of halogen lamps where fluorescent lamps wouldn't be ideal, such as accent lighting and other applications needing spot or collimated light. 



> I agree that things will be leaning toward LED taking over lighting, but maybe never incan.. LED 'feels' like FL.. it will take over the FL market as it becomes more cost effective to use LED vs FL.. but the shops that really want their stuff to sell will use lighting that makes it look better and for now that is halogen lighting!
> -awr




That is one of the applications where halogen lamps is preferred, because, improved merchadise apperance means more sale and more sale means more profit. Such practice would be phased out if the increase in profit dosen't surpass increase in energy cost and this is why you only see them in high profit visual appeal merchandise.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Mar 22, 2006)

bwaites said:


> They are both right on the edge.
> 
> BUT...I thought resistance in the filament rose with temperature, and if the temp is the same, wouldn't the current required to drive it be the same? Or is it a function of the voltage as well?
> 
> ...



The resistance does increase with temperature, but it doesn't mean the increase is proportional to input voltage. 

See my thread.
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/111203


----------



## Luna (Mar 22, 2006)

bwaites said:


> The temp required for maximum production is still the same. And it doesn't matter how thick you make the filament, it is still going to get so hot that it goes POOF when it reaches that point, right?
> 
> Bill



For the most part yes. 

Since we don't have perfect retention of energy, you still have cooling and so variables are in place to hit the design criteria of decent life. Temperature is a function of the filament design and they are quite complex. You already know that the filament is a spiral of wire that itself is spiraled. As you alter the space that filament takesup, you also increase its ability to cool itself. So you have a fine balance of determining the guage, length, and topography of the filament to hit the desired life, output and power requirements. It is very difficult to model.


----------



## Luna (Mar 22, 2006)

Handlobraesing said:


> The resistance does increase with temperature, but it doesn't mean the increase is proportional to input voltage.
> 
> See my thread.
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/111203




dT = -1.86(R/R0)^2 + 206.6(R/R0) +118

R/R0 is the ratio of resistance change per temperature change


----------



## NewBie (Mar 22, 2006)

Here are some measurements off some bulbs I tested awhile ago:


----------



## js (Mar 22, 2006)

Guys, I just was previewing a friggin 2 page post and made one single change to fix a missing "[/b]" and lost everything. I had saved the text of the post by pasting it into Notepad, but my ENTIRE COMPUTER locked up.

GOD I HATE WINDOWS MACHINES! HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE. ANGRY. ANGRY. ANGRY.


----------



## Luna (Mar 22, 2006)

js said:


> Guys, I just was previewing a friggin 2 page post and made one single change to fix a missing "[/b]" and lost everything. I had saved the text of the post by pasting it into Notepad, but my ENTIRE COMPUTER locked up.
> 
> GOD I HATE WINDOWS MACHINES! HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE. ANGRY. ANGRY. ANGRY.





I feel your pain, I've had a few hour long composition posts get eaten. It is a quote problem with this version of vBulletin. Don't use the quote tags!!! Seems fine for small posts but big ones (or ones that take a while to compose) get lost. I haven't noticed if Firefox is anybetter now that I compose offline.


----------



## js (Mar 22, 2006)

OK.

So look, I just don't have time to read everything new in this thread since I last read it (fast). I have only enough time in my lunch break to make this post (AGAIN). So if I am repeating what others have said, I am sorry.

****

Check out this graph I found for the IRC coating:






This is the radiation curve of the filament with the transmission curve of the coating superimposed on top of it. As you can see it reduces the IR intensities by about 80 percent on average. According to Osram:



Osram said:


> IRC technology (Infrared Reflective Coating)
> Halogen lamps don’t just produce light. 60% of the created radiation are infrared (IR) rays. The innovative IRC technology increases the efficiency of halogen lamps by reflecting a major part of the generated useless IR radiation back to the coil where it is converted into visible light. The infrared reflective coating at the outside of the burner acts as an IR mirror but lets nearly 100% of visible light pass (see figure 2). In comparison to standard halogen lamps it is possible to optimise the lamp in different directions by using the IRC process:
> 
> • more light output
> ...



This is stunning. I am amazed. I had no idea it was THIS good.

As pointed out, the filament will radiate as long as it is hot. It is (very nearly) a black body radiator, whose radiation curve is governed by Temperature. The applied electrical power is only there to make and keep it hot. If you insulate (IRC coating) less power is needed. All of this has been stated, and I think it can't be disputed.

So, as for questions about what will happen if you add an IRC to a lamp such as the 64625 or 62138, obviously, less power will be needed to maintain the filament temp near its operating point (very near melting). In the case of the 62138, you would simply apply less voltage, because it's total resistance would remain the same because the Temp and geometry would remain the same. Thus lowering V applied would lower the power. It's that simple. Normally lowering V would lower T, which would lower efficiency and CCT, but in this case, the IRC coating returns enough heat to maintain the T, thus maintaining efficiency.

Or, you could re-design the filament. Make it thinner (thus increasing R) so that it draws less current and thus less power.

Making the filament run at near melting point, and insulating the capsule as well as the IRC does, will NECESSARILY raise the temperature of the glass envelope. Dramatically. This will be one of the problems with attaining the 60+ LPW efficiency. But even so, according to the IRC data, this is theoretically attainable if the envelope can take the temperature.

It took me a while for all of this to sink in. Do you all realize what this means? It means nothing less than a *REVOLUTION IN INCANDESCENT TECHNOLOGY*. A new lease on life.

The last one was the noble fill gas and halogen trace additive / halogen cycle revolution. And incidentally, after giving it a lot of thought, I believe that this is why Xenon fill gas allows a 10 percent gain which can be used to increase efficiency OR increase filament life, which also implies saving electricity. I disagree with the statement that the xenon only increases efficiency by allowing you to run hotter (due to lower vaporization rate). It is more than that. It returns thermal energy to the filament better, or it insulates better, or something along those lines.

And the IRC coating is a many fold improvement over THAT improvement!

And this is why there is not and never will be a formula that relates Voltage and Current and filament geometry to CCT (or T). It can't be done because the missing factor is the HEAT TRANSFER CHARACTERISTICS of the lamp with the surrounding environment.

And keep in mind that this is why filaments are coiled--not just to pack more effective length in a "shorter" filament, but also to make the same applied current heat the filament better. Coils mutually heat one another by being so close together.

Perhaps this is another one of the reasons why the 64440 and 64447 IRC lamps have long thin filaments with many turns in the coil--to increase the T for a given applied electrical current. Of course, the draw back is a large filament and poor focusing in a small reflector. But still. It's more efficient.


----------



## js (Mar 22, 2006)

I can't possibly express how friggin' pissed off I am right now at this computer. I tried to post this FIVE TIMES! Un-be-freakin-lieavble. I'm DONE. I'm already over my lunch break and I haven't even had lunch yet.

Why can't we use Macs here at work? Where is OS X? Oh, man, I hate Windows and IE and the whole damn lot of it.

So, anyway, I won't have much time to keep up with this thread, so good luck and good hunting, and I hope this helped.

Obviously, I retract my earlier post. 42 LPW is not the limit. YEE HAAAAA! I'm am wicked happy to be wrong on this one.

If this can get out there, it means that IRC lamps will compete with HID and beat LED. I am so psyched about this. YA!!! INCANS RULE!!!!!


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 22, 2006)

js said:


> If this can get out there, it means that IRC lamps will compete with HID and beat LED. I am so psyched about this. YA!!! INCANS RULE!!!!!


Remember though that at best IRC will deliver 60 lm/W (a figure which low-power LED has already exceeded by a large margin, and high-power LED will exceed this year), and then only at the expense of very short lamp life. Sure, this might extend the demise of incandescent by a bit, but only in certain specialized lighting applications. I haven't yet seen a IRC bulb for general lighting. And if we want filament life at least equal to 1000 hours, we probably won't exceed the mid 30s.

My guess is if you need huge amounts of lighting power in a physically small space then it will be long time coming before LEDs can compete. For example, I've seen 1000 watt bulbs the size of my finger. IRC will only make such bulbs better. Still, this is a niche application. What I see happening with incandescents is exactly what happened with amplifier tubes. They'll continue to be made for a long time for a few niche applications where nothing else works, but LED will probably take over 99.999% of their present applications the way transistors did with tube amplifiers. Even with the improvement IRC offers, it just can't compete with the 150 to 200 lm/W on the horizon for LEDs, and it certainly can't touch the 100,000 hour lifetime.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 22, 2006)

I keep playing with the numbers, trying to find an equation, and I've come to believe that it isn't a linear or logarithmic equation, but a non-linear one. 

That takes it well outside my expertise, which is relatively small when it comes to math anyway.

But the best I can come up with is about 53-54 Lumens/watt which actually is not too far off Osrams 35% number. 

That, though, is a theoretical max, at least with the math I can do, and the real world is probably a good 5 lumens or more less. 

So can you break the 42 Lumens/watt rule? Yes, I think so now, but I am convinced that we aren't getting to 60 Lumen/watt, at least with this tech. And I still feel like Incan tech is at point where we aren't going to see much improvement, but I'm sure some of the posters here will tell me I'm all wet.

Bill


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 22, 2006)

bwaites said:


> And I still feel like Incan tech is at point where we aren't going to see much improvement, but I'm sure some of the posters here will tell me I'm all wet.


For what it's worth I share those feelings. Outside of the ability to concentrate a lot of lighting power in a very small space, something which is mainly suited for a few niche applications, and for the present being cheaper than most alternatives, incandescent offers no compelling advantages over other technologies that large amounts of money would be invested to try to improve it. And it has lots of distinct disadvantages-short life, poor efficiency (even with the improvements from IRC), inability to tune the spectrum to make either colors or different shades of white, high temperatures which are potentially hazardous. LED can take over all general and most focused light applications just fine. Indeed, LED has already bettered incandescent in most key areas except cost. Another thing worth mentioning is R&D money generally tends to go to those technologies which have the potential to improve the most. Power LEDs can potentially increase by a factor of 5 or more over their present 40 lm/W. This pales next to even a 50% improvement potentially possible with IRC. And IRC does nothing at all to improve lamp life.

IMHO the only thing which will really revolutionize incandescent and possibly give it an extended lease of life would be a new filament material capable of operating at 6500K, combined with IRC (and maybe UVC). Efficiency could potentially exceed 100 lm/W by a large margin. If such a filament cost no more than tungsten, plus had a much longer life at the mentioned 6500K than today's filaments do at 3000K, then incandescent would indeed give LED a run for the money. The only problem is we know of no material which remains solid at those kinds of temperatures.


----------



## Spacemarine (Mar 22, 2006)

js said:


> Obviously, I retract my earlier post. 42 LPW is not the limit. YEE HAAAAA! I'm am wicked happy to be wrong on this one.



That's good to hear from you!



bwaites said:


> So can you break the 42 Lumens/watt rule? Yes, I think so now



Finally! That's what I tried to explain from the beginning. I wonder why it was so hard to come to that conclusion.


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 22, 2006)

incan's pretty much had its run i think... LED is already just about at the same L/W of a typical incan... the question is if it can get up to fluorescent. 

The benefit of incan at this point is lumen per cubic centimeter.. something that i doubt 20 yrs will get LED into the same place.. so for high power spotlights with instant-on capability.. you either have incan or arc. You'll noticed there are lights out there that have a choice of either 35W HID or 100W incan.. similar amount of light, why does the 100W even sell? because it doesn't take 90-120 seconds to turn on. 

That said.. a 30-50% improvement with high-power lights the like of the mag85 etc.. would be greatly appreciated when battery powered and runtimes typically in the low 20 minute range. I for one have some high-hopes of finding a really nice solution with these particular lamps. 

Example.. if the 35W model can be pushed near 20V.. a stack of 6x3 short A cells will get me 21.6V i can regulate to 20V and boorah! it might actually be white enough to be IMHO useable. I am as bill pointed out.. spoiled by the color (or lack of) with the 64625 lamp. 

-awr


----------



## bwaites (Mar 22, 2006)

Sorry, SpaceMarine, but I had to read and re-read your posts, and then make the numbers work myself.

_I apolgize to you and whoever else, I think it was Winny, who tried to make me see the light! I guess I'm to much of a "prove it to me" kind of guy!_

I'm still not 100% convinced that this is an answer, because I can't drive them hard enough to get anywhere close to the color temps I want in a light, but maybe andrewwynn can.

I wonder why this has not been done in mass produced lamps for multiple uses? It would seem that it would be ideal for bathroom lighting, art lights, etc, but it may be impossible to get to the white light needed to produce good results in those situations.

Bill


----------



## Luna (Mar 22, 2006)

bwaites said:


> m still not 100% convinced that this is an answer, because I can't drive them hard enough to get anywhere close to the color temps I want in a light, but maybe andrewwynn can.
> Bill



Then cheat and buy one of those blue automotive bulbs  If it reflects back the energy like the IRC then I wouldn't complain 




AWR said:


> You'll noticed there are lights out there that have a choice of either 35W HID or 100W incan.. similar amount of light, why does the 100W even sell? because it doesn't take 90-120 seconds to turn on.



I don't have a problem with my Lexus headlights and I think that is just a critical as the situation we have in this comparo :HID vs incand *Cost is the only reason for me*. Even when igniting, a good HID will still put out a great deal of light so as to still be very useful.


----------



## Luna (Mar 22, 2006)

js said:


> If this can get out there, it means that IRC lamps will compete with HID and beat LED. I am so psyched about this. YA!!! INCANS RULE!!!!!



But we have LED tech catching up very quickly now. Just look at the 5mm units of a few years ago vs the multi hundred lumen emitters now out. As eff increases with the LED, we will have smaller emitters that will finally remove the biggest problem facing LEDs, poor focusability.


JS, don't use the quote tag next time. Bold, underline italic etc are fine but the quote is the killer...sometimes


----------



## Sway (Mar 22, 2006)

andrewwynn said:


> The benefit of incan at this point is lumen per cubic centimeter.. something that i doubt 20 yrs will get LED into the same place.. so for high power spotlights with instant-on capability.. you either have incan or arc. You'll noticed there are lights out there that have a choice of either 35W HID or 100W incan.. similar amount of light, why does the 100W even sell? because it doesn't take 90-120 seconds to turn on.
> -awr



I know this is getting way off course but the warm up time for modern HID's like we are working with is more like 30 to 35 seconds, (rule of thumb 1 second per watt) is very close.



Luna said:


> I don't have a problem with my Lexus headlights and I think that is just a critical as the situation we have in this comparo :HID vs incand *Cost is the only reason for me*. Even when igniting, a good HID will still put out a great deal of light so as to still be very useful.



Agreed, they are very bright when you first turn them on, how bright I don't know, wouldn't even wager a guess in this company but it's not like going from 0 to 35 watts in a linear fashion.

Now back to your regularly scheduled fracas :nana:

Later
Kelly


----------



## js (Mar 22, 2006)

Just got an email from Bill and wanted to also post response here.

I think the key to approaching an upper limit estimate is to look at the transmission curve in my post above for the IRC coating. It looks to me as if 80 percent of the IR is reflected back, and 20 percent transmitted.

Now, even at max filament temp, the output is still over 50 percent IR. So assume 50 percent. Now 80 percent of that 50 percent is reflected back, which yields a net gain of 40 percent. 40 percent of 42 LPW is 16.8 LPW. Now add that gain to 42 LPW and you get 58.8 LPW.

For what it's worth. There may be something wrong with my reasoning on this.

As for LED's already making 60 LPW, well, yes at very low power density. But the high powered Lux III's and V's are not there yet. And why does everyone assume that there is no upper limit to LED technology, but that incan tech is moribund. Could be true, but it also may NOT be true. Still . . . I agree that LED's are going to be taking over. But I disagree that incans are going to go away. Especially not now that IRC tech is in the cards. I had assumed that it was only significant for long life lamps, but theoretically, there is no reason it can't be used in all sorts of lamps.

I don't care what ya'll say. My enthusiasm will not be damped. You can't rain on MY parade. Especially not if I stop reading this thread. LOL! :devil: j/k j/k j/k.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 22, 2006)

Understood!

But a significant portion of that heat doesn't hit the filament, it hits the glass. We can't expect that the 80% of IR is going to all warm the filament, we can't make a reflector that reflects light and get 80% of it out the front, there is no reason to expect that a reflective coating will do it inside the lamp. 

And you have to start out way low and work up to where the most efficient filament temp is, because as it heats more it produces more IR which heats the filament more which increases the IR production which heats the filament more, etc, ad infinitum. So you have to start at a temp which you can be relatively sure won't create the runaway heat. I suspect that is why the IRC is used on LOW POWER lamps! 

So you overbuild the filament, use low power and it will run forever, but I'll bet that as you increase that power, you shorten the life even faster than in a traditional lamp because of that issue.

Bill


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 22, 2006)

js said:


> And why does everyone assume that there is no upper limit to LED technology, but that incan tech is moribund. Could be true, but it also may NOT be true. Still . . . I agree that LED's are going to be taking over. But I disagree that incans are going to go away. Especially not now that IRC tech is in the cards. I had assumed that it was only significant for long life lamps, but theoretically, there is no reason it can't be used in all sorts of lamps.


No arguing that LED efficiency can't continue to increase forever. If we're talking white LEDs, depending upon the spectrum 100% efficiency would be anywhere from 200 lm/W to 400 lm/W, with 300 lm/W representing a decent balance between color rendering and efficiency. Now we all know nothing in this world is 100% efficient. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say we'll reach 50% efficiency (150 lm/W) fairly soon and fairly easily. We're already almost there with low-power LEDs (Nichia hit 113 lm/W in February). We'll have 100 lm/W low power LEDs in production late this year, and 150 lm/W probably a year to 18 months later. Power LEDs are usually a year to 18 months behind low power ones, so figure we'll have 150 lm/W power LEDs within 3 years. After that who knows? We may indeed hit a brick wall around 150 lm/W. In any case any further increases will be a long time coming. I think it's likely we'll hit 200 lm/W (67% efficiency) within a decade. I also highly doubt we'll break 80% ever but I'd love to be proven wrong.

Now let's look at incandescent. IRC could get us close to 60 lm/W if lamp life isn't a huge concern, or more practically might mean household incandescents getting 30 lm/W instead of 16 or 17, unless of course there are practical reasons IRC can't be used there (higher bulb temperature might be one). I honestly don't see how we could get past those numbers barring a new filament material. As for incandescent going away, it won't completely, at least until we have LEDs which output tens of kilolumens in an area no bigger than a present lamp filament. However, those applications which require such a lumen density will remain the last stronghold of incandescent. Probably in ten years you won't even be able to find an incandescent lamp in regular use in most households.



> I don't care what ya'll say. My enthusiasm will not be damped. You can't rain on MY parade. Especially not if I stop reading this thread. LOL! :devil: j/k j/k j/k.


Well, I'll stop short of saying incandescent is completely dead because with modern material technology who knows if we'll find some exotic material which remains solid at temperatures which would vaporize tungsten. I hope that keeps the rain off your parade.:lolsign:


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 22, 2006)

holy cow busy thread today. 

I don't think they can be driven to the color temp we will like either, Bill, but i will definitely be finding out the answer to that. In any event.. my bet is that i can get color temps equal to the 62138 lamp with efficiencies above forty lumen/watt and that's an incredible thing.. if i can get 45 it will be a home-run, and if it's high 40s well grand slam. 

I think that CCT is a limiting factor, also with the rated values of 4000hrs but 3000CCT.. i'm really surprised, and i think that there is a good chance the efficiency savings from the IRC is most helpful at the ffaarrr lower drive levels. 

funny, luna about the blue tint, but a filter absorbs the light and turns it to heat.. helps out with CCT but not efficiency. 

I was exaggerating and my only HID light is my X990.. it's not happy for a good solid minute.. you get 80% of the light in 30 sec, but it's still warming up for a good long time.. also from what i understand on and off is not a good thing for those bulbs.. another thing i like with incan instant on. but also instant off (well, not quite so instant with the likes of the 64625!). 

JS.. looks like your math matched mine almost exactly (57LW max theoretical). 

LOL on the 80% reflector, bill.. true enough, and i think that as they are pushed more more IR will make it through the IRC... my guess is that the effectiveness will go down but it will still be there. regardless of the effectiveness.. even if it was 10% or 2%.. with the 4000hr filament.. they will take some PUNISHING overdrive like DFI has tested already.. and with any luck get the CCT within 300K of ideal.

as far as the cyclical heat and bounce and heat and bounce.. that's no problem.. IR that bounces back off the inner wall of the envelope but misses the filament will go to the other wall and bounce back and get another chance on the re-rebound... IR that tried to leave the front, bounced back and misses the filament will hit where the fliaments come in and most likely be absorbed or bounce at some funny angle and maybe never leave, but slowly be absorbed by the IRC and warm the envelope or of course each time it hits some will leave. 

In any event.. the filament should behave quite like what we are used to with regular bulbs, just perhaps with a different set of curves to describe the relationship with overdrive since the power getting to the filament is more than the percentage that used to be there. 

re jtr.. totally agreed.. household incan is really obsolete material.. the IRC lamps won't be taking the place of them is my prediction 100%. 

What will replace household incan will be LED.. CFL did a decent job of working its way into houses, and they aren't bad at all actually, but they won't have the reliability of LED lighting once a decade has passed and the bugs are worked out.. with the latest rounds of CFLs being almost identical in size to the incan lamp they replace.. it's really amazing that incan lamps even sell anymore.. but it does take a LOT of hours to make up the cost difference.. say it costs 75 cents for a 60W lamp.. and $3.50 for a 13W CFL with similar output.. the equation .75+60/10000 x = 3.50+13/10000x works out to 585 hrs before break-even.. that's actually not bad.. only like 1/2 yr to pay for the savings if you use the light like 3 1/2 hrs/day... i was expecting it to take longer.. go CFL! 

So.. bring on LED.. when it costs $2-3 for an LED light that can output 500-600L and start replacing CFL... but not having to replace them every couple of years but will last a decade on average.. sweetness. 

-awr


----------



## bwaites (Mar 22, 2006)

I have yet to find CFL's that last 2 years, lots of hype, but none have made it 2 years and I have tried lots. 

I have about 50 cans with spots in them in my home. I replace about 5-10 month. CFL's slow that to about 3-5, but still!!!!

I'm not sold on CFL's especially when you count the time it takes to get to full power. 

Bill


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 22, 2006)

I was trying to be kind.  (2 yrs) I have some really neat light-bulb looking CFL that i bought in 2001, still chugging.. the 3 incans i bought that looks almost the same.. i've been using 1 at a time and on the 3rd one. 

some CFLs wwwhhooaa on how slow they are to start, but the ones i have in my bathroom and kithcen light up very quickly.. though they both have a 'soft start' to them. 

-awr


----------



## Luna (Mar 22, 2006)

js said:


> I don't care what ya'll say. My enthusiasm will not be damped. You can't rain on MY parade. Especially not if I stop reading this thread. LOL! :devil: j/k j/k j/k.




I'm just glad to see you getting another post thru 

What I would like to see is a totally supported filament. This would have to be done with with God knows what (anyone know Lumicera's melting point??). Even diamond wouldn't be for much better use. If the coating is good enough, gas wouldn't be necessary at all and the capsule would hold in much more of the heat. Since the the melting point is not an issue in a fully supported filament structture, you would be able to really drive the hell out of it. Now the simple task of finding a transparent ceramic coating that has at least a 1000deg higher melting temp than tungsten :devil:


EDIT: JTR, just saw your post. We are on the same page but I think ceramic tech is the big unknown at this point. You never know what those boys are cooking up!


----------



## NewBie (Mar 22, 2006)

bwaites said:


> Understood!
> 
> But a significant portion of that heat doesn't hit the filament, it hits the glass. We can't expect that the 80% of IR is going to all warm the filament, we can't make a reflector that reflects light and get 80% of it out the front, there is no reason to expect that a reflective coating will do it inside the lamp.
> 
> Bill



Actually, you can get reflector coatings that will send 98% out the front. Most people can't afford it, and alot of come lately flashlight makers seem to be wanting to maximize profit for personal gain. So I doubt you'll see Enhanced Protected Silver and other such decent reflector coatings, except from companies like Reva, where you are paying 2500.00 or so for the light.

The coating you are talking about that kicks the heat back at the surface is called a hot mirror. They aren't that tough to make for those skilled in the art. Lower end versions can easily kick 80% of the Near-IR back at the filament in a globe shaped bulb, while allowing 98% of the visible light to pass through. 

Cold mirrors (opposite of hot mirrors) are often made from very low cost coatings, often Titanium Dioxide and Silicon Dioxide, both of which are very low cost materials. You vary the thickness as well as the stack-up of the layers. It is similar to AR coated glass, process and layer wise. The chamber time can cost 10,000.00 dollars, but you can coat 100,000 bulbs a shot, with the proper chamber, and the cost is only 0.10 a bulb.

Here is a page for a fella who describes a series and shows the plots for a simple cold mirror:
http://www.sspectra.com/designs/coldmirror.html

Hot Mirror:
http://www.ocioptics.com/dielmir.html

These folks are over 95% reflective at NIR:
http://www.kruschwitz.com/Cold/hot.htm

Or 99% reflective:
http://www.highend.com/products/dichroic/HotMirror.asp


----------



## bwaites (Mar 22, 2006)

I was hoping you'd jump in, Newbie.

So is it possible to pull the efficiency up to the levels talked about with the coatings?

js posted Osrams IRC coating info, hope you can take a look at it.

AND, I understand about the coatings, I wish we could get something reasonably tough and useful in flashlights at a better price!!

Bill


----------



## Handlobraesing (Mar 23, 2006)

bwaites said:


> I have yet to find CFL's that last 2 years, lots of hype, but none have made it 2 years and I have tried lots.
> 
> I have about 50 cans with spots in them in my home. I replace about 5-10 month. CFL's slow that to about 3-5, but still!!!!
> 
> ...



Were these the lamps you bought for 99 cents to $3 each from Winco or Home Depot?

Good CFLs do last a long time, especially a kind that has a ballast that cost $20.

You will see them used in commercial settings. These have a good starting strategy called "programmed rapid start" which really saves the lamp life.


----------



## NewBie (Mar 23, 2006)

NIR coatings isn't a new concept for bulbs.

Even plain jane GE has had the coatings for some time now, it is just called something else...

I thought they came out in 1990, like 16 years ago, but actually it was 1989, so it was 17 years ago the technology was created. There are a number of developments that haven't hit the market, as there wasn't too much demand. I do believe CFL and upcomming LEDs are squeezing in on their market share, and you'll see various improvements show up as time goes on.

"1989 Halogen-IR™ Par Lamp- First halogen bulb with reflective coating for superior efficiency" -GE Lighting

More info:

11. What is special about HIR lamps?

HIR stands for Halogen-IR. An IR (infrared) coating is placed on the filament tube of some of our halogen lamps. This multiple layer coating not only absorbs UV but also re-directs IR (heat) back onto the filament. By re-directing the IR back to the filament, the lamp produces more light for the same amount of energy and the amount of heat generated by the lamp is reduced when compared to standard Halogen products. Therefore HIR saves money by....
http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/faqs/halogen.htm#11


IMHO, there is quite a limit to IRC/HIR, and while they can tweak it for a little more, there isn't much more you'll get out of it.

In 2003, GE combined HIR with silver based reflectors:
2003 Retail HIR Halogen PAR 38 - Thin film HIR and silver reflector technologies have 46% higher efficiency than standard halogens. 

In 1962, GE claims to have created the first LED:
1962 Light Emitting Diode (LED)- Invented by GE. Electricity is transformed into light inside a solid crystal of semiconductor material. 

Sodium Vapor:
1961 Lucalox® High-Pressure Sodium Lamps- Highest efficacy general lighting source ever 

A robust filament:
1911 Ductile Tungsten Lamp- Shock-resistant filament enabled automobile and railroad lighting 

1930 Photoflash Lamp- Replaced flash powder used by professional photographers 

1934 Mercury Vapor Lamp- First high-pressure gaseous discharge lamp-better performance and economy



Even the Japanese have been working on better ways to put the HIR/IRC coatings on the bulbs, this one was filed in 2002 by Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (Osaka, JP) .

"BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 

`Journal of Illuminating Engineering Society`, July 1980 (p. 197-203) or some other documents have suggested methods for providing low power incandescent lamps and tungsten-halogen lamps. For this purpose, light bulbs are coated with infrared reflection films to substantially pass only visible light that is selected from light beams emitted from filament portions of the light bulbs. 

In this method, a maximum proportion of the infrared reflection light, which appears to compose 70-80% of the radiation energy, can be reflected inside of the light bulb. The reflected light is focused on the filament coil portion to heat the same portion. Since the filament coil portion is reheated in this manner, the consumed power is reduced by 20-30% in comparison with a conventional light bulb when the illuminance (total value of luminous flux) from the filament portions is equivalent. "
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6635330.html


Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (Osaka, JP) also has a patent on their HIR/IRC coated bulbs, filed in 2000:

"The luminous efficiency of this conventional tungsten halogen lamp increases by about 50% because of the infrared reflecting film 23 and the elliptical arc tube 22. However, since the tungsten halogen lamp has a double-tube structure in which the arc tube 22 is held in the outer tube 24, the structure is complicated and involves a high cost. 

In order to solve the above problems, it is an object of the present invention to provide a tungsten halogen lamp that has a long life and a high efficiency and is inexpensive, and a method for manufacturing the same, by preventing the oxidation of the metal foils. "
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6336837.html


GE filed for another twist on the HIR/IRC technique in 1989:
" All of the methods of the present invention also yield light sources that are particularly suitable for allowing infrared or visible reflective coating to be applied to their surfaces. For such reflective coated light sources, the associated lamp leads and their respective seal members of the light source are all encased in the light source during the reflective film coating process and, therefore, are protected against any detrimental reaction of the lamp leads and seals that may otherwise be created by the interaction of ingredients used for the reflective coating. The light sources are particularly suited for use with infrared reflective coating because the light source may be shaped to most effectively reflect the infrared back to the filament."
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5045748.html


GE also came up with a better way of forming the HIR/IRC coating on the bulb in 1991:
" One application in which these thin film optical coatings have been found to be useful is to improve the illumination efficiency or efficacy of incandescent and arc lamps by reflecting infrared radiation emitted by a filament or arc back to the filament or arc while transmitting the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum emitted by the filament or arc. This lowers the amount of electrical energy required to be supplied to the filament or arc to maintain its operating temperature"

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5138219.html


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 23, 2006)

both of mine have that rapid start i'd call 'slow start'. it's really visible but quick enough to not be a problem.. and i only paid like $3-4/lamp. 

-awr


----------



## NewBie (Mar 23, 2006)

Osram Sylvania Inc. (Danvers, MA) also worked on improving their HIR/IRC coatings back in 1995:

"In one application, these coatings form an optical interference filter for selectively reflecting infrared energy emitted by the lamp filament back to the filament while transmitting the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum emitted by the filament. As a result, the amount of electrical energy required to maintain the operating temperature of the filament is reduced. 
"
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5550423.html


I'm very surprised the Hot Wire guys didn't know about this old technology a long time ago....


.
Info on forming reflective and transmissive wavelength selective filters from 1978, Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. (Santa Rosa, CA):
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4229066.html


In reality, the earliest HIR/IRC coated bulb patent I can find from 1985, held by Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. (Santa Rosa, CA):

8. A lamp as claimed in claim 7, wherein said bandpass filter comprises a hot mirror having high transmittance for visible light and high reflectance of infrared radiation. 
"One application in which thin film optical coatings are useful is to improve the illumination efficiency of incandescent lamps. It is well-known that applying a hot mirror type of optical coating to the envelope of an incandescent lamp increases its energy efficiency."
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4663557.html


Nope, found an earlier one, U.S. Philips Corporation (New York, NY) ->1974<-:

"The filter may also be used to increase the efficiency of a light source by reflecting the thermal radiation to the source"
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3949259.html


Now the coating was used with sodium vapor lamps as a way to keep the arc temperature high, to raise the sodium vapor lamp efficiency, back in 1966, by North American Phillips, NY a corporation of Delware:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/image-3400288-1.html


These same HIR/IRC coating techniques could be used with HID bulbs to further increase their efficiencies. This would help to reduce the heat losses, and increase the poor efficiencies of low power HID bulbs, and possibly help higher power HID bulbs. I haven't heard of HID bulbs using this technique yet, but who knows.... (by HID, I mean short arc, not sodium vapor, which has used these sorts of coatings since 1966)


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 23, 2006)

how the hell you know where to find all these specs.. the world may never know but it's good to have a newbie in your corner when trying to dig up such kind of dirt.. interesting that it's been a DECADE since the patent.


----------



## greg_in_canada (Mar 23, 2006)

NewBie said:


> Osram Sylvania Inc. (Danvers, MA) also worked on improving their HIR/IRC coatings back in 1995:
> 
> "In one application, these coatings form an optical interference filter for selectively reflecting infrared energy emitted by the lamp filament back to the filament while transmitting the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum emitted by the filament. As a result, the amount of electrical energy required to maintain the operating temperature of the filament is reduced.
> "
> ...


 
I heard about IR reflecting bulbs a long time ago (5 to 10 years ago) and thought it was very cool. But then nothing until I learned Osram has a commercial product.

Greg


----------



## bwaites (Mar 23, 2006)

We didn't miss them as much as dismiss them because we can't drive them hard enough with a battery package that is reasonable in size.

At current levels that we can sustain, they are yellow. If we can use LiIon or LiPoly cells we might be able to do so, but none are available in the right package shapes or sizes yet.

Bill


----------



## Handlobraesing (Mar 23, 2006)

greg_in_canada said:


> I heard about IR reflecting bulbs a long time ago (5 to 10 years ago) and thought it was very cool. But then nothing until I learned Osram has a commercial product.
> 
> Greg



They can afford to run the filament at a lower temperature, because the reflected infrared would boost the efficacy so the lamps's efficacy isn't reduced by burning it at a slightly lower temperature.


----------



## js (Mar 23, 2006)

Handlobraesing,

I suspect that you may be confusing things in exactly the way that had me stating that 42 LPW was the max.

*The IRC raises the temperature for the same power input, or lowers the power input required to maintain the same temperature*.

I apologize in advance if you weren't doing this, but just wanted to re-state the fundamental phenomenon responsible for the gain in efficiency.

Newbie,

What Bill said.

Plus, who cares how long ago this was discovered and lab tested. I don't care if Edison thought about doing it. The point is that it holds out the promise of a significant gain in efficiency, even for higher CCT operation,

IF the glass envelope temperature issue can be addressed, or is actually a non issue. I'm pretty sure that it IS an issue because the stated operating temp of a 62138 is like 900+ degrees F. I don't think even quartz glass will take much more than that.


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 23, 2006)

it takes a lotta cells to make up the voltage required.. and LiPO sure doesn't want to fit into a round host well. however.. the 6x3 combination holds some promise, and i will be exploring putting these lamps into a maghost at drive levels we'd appreciate soon. 

-awr


----------



## Handlobraesing (Mar 23, 2006)

js said:


> Handlobraesing,
> 
> I suspect that you may be confusing things in exactly the way that had me stating that 42 LPW was the max.
> 
> *The IRC raises the temperature for the same power input, or lowers the power input required to maintain the same temperature*.



If it didn't lower the temperature, it would not be seeing the increased life benefit. IRC or not, the life is a function of filament temperature.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 23, 2006)

Handlpbraesing,

The reason they are long life lamps is that they overbuild the filament. The 35 watt, for instance, has a filament that you would expect in a 50 watt. 

So, even though it is operating at a 35 watt level, you get longer life from the lamp.

Bill


----------



## Handlobraesing (Mar 23, 2006)

bwaites said:


> Handlpbraesing,
> 
> The reason they are long life lamps is that they overbuild the filament. The 35 watt, for instance, has a filament that you would expect in a 50 watt.
> 
> ...



Interesting. Where did you read this?


----------



## js (Mar 23, 2006)

Handlobraesing,

Yes, you are correct. Hours of life is primarily a function of the CCT of the filament.

In the case of the 64440 and 64447 IRC lamps, they have split the gain between CCT/life and efficiency.

In other words, they could have kept the filament temp the same as a 2,000 hr lamp and used the IRC entirely to increase efficiency. Instead, they lowered filament temp to increase life, AND made it easier to maintain the temp due to the IRC coating.

So, just to be clear, what you said in your post #125 is correct. I wasn't saying it wasn't. I just read it and added my additional info above, just in case. But I see now that your statement includes what I was saying. So, I shouldn't have posted it.

Sorry!

But, just in case, at this point we both agree with each others' statements, right?

*****

As for "overbuilding" of long life filaments, all Bill is saying is that any long life filament can be overdriven--by definition--and become a higher powered, more efficient lamp. To an extent. Obviously, the vapor pressure in the lamp plays a role, so if the long life lamp is a low pressure one, it will never be as efficient as a high pressure xenon high CCT lamp that was designed to be that way from the ground up.

The point is merely that the filament in a long life lamp has a low CCT.

Right, Bill?


----------



## Luna (Mar 23, 2006)

second post attmpt...



> The point is merely that the filament in a long life lamp has a low CCT.
> Right, Bill?




I don't think that is right. 

Same CCT in both cases. (Without keeping the same temp, a greater filament surface area is required to be able to produce the same output. That kills the the tight focuse that we are aiming for)


The thicker the filament is, given the same temp, the longer it lasts before hotspots develop and the light burns out. Problem is that when we increase the gauge of the filament , we have to increase its length to keep resistance the same. Of course that kills the focusibility. 

In this case of IRC lamps we can still have a shorter, thicker filament because the re- reflected energy compensates for the lower power and brings the filament upt to the same temp as the higher powered bulb while still keeping the same voltage input


----------



## bwaites (Mar 23, 2006)

The long life Osram lamps are VERY yellow in comparison to their 12 volt Xenophot (sp?) brethren.

If you look at the filaments, they are considerably thicker than similar filaments for lamps of the same supposed wattage levels. 

I assume (there is that bad word) that they do so to create a longer life with a higher temp lamp, but the light produced at the spec level is definitely much more yellow than what you would expect from a high output lamp.

So what I THINK they are doing is overbuilding the filament, counting on the IR to add the additional heat to bring it up to a reasonable operating temp, and using that additional bulk to make it last a long time. 

Of course, that is only what I observe, and I haven't done anything with my lamps but light them up and try to drive them to a reasonably white level. (I haven't done that, at least to a level that I consider white!)

I wonder about the pressure in these lamps also, as the envelope does not SEEM to be as thick as the glass in the high pressure lamps I am familiar with. If they aren't high pressure, I don't think we can get the color temps we are used to out of them. 

Now, the shape may be inherently stronger and not need that thickness, but I have NO way of knowing or testing for that!!

Bill


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 23, 2006)

the pressure question is an interesting one, and what effect that will have on lamp life when wildly overdriven. as DFI's experiments showed, they can take a lot more overdrive than we'd have probably tried. I think they will need to have 18-20V to acchieve a color temp we'd be happy with. It looks like they attempted to make the envelope close to spherical, which would make it possible to make a thinner envelope and be just as strong (also they seem to be very small). 

-awr


----------



## hizzo3 (Mar 24, 2006)

LEDcandle said:


> I'm totally out of my league here but :-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



there seems to also be a problem with the meters at that level of light. they were designed for ambiant and workplace lighting.... not for testing super bright lights like airplane landing lights or hid lamps :touche:


----------



## NewBie (Mar 24, 2006)

andrewwynn said:


> how the hell you know where to find all these specs.. the world may never know but it's good to have a newbie in your corner when trying to dig up such kind of dirt.. interesting that it's been a DECADE since the patent.




Humm, well, I know alot of really wierd and what most folks would consider, strange things. I knew the hot mirror coating was an old trick from way back in the Kennedy days or older, and it would just take time to see folks adapt it to other technologies besides sodium vapor lamps, and figure out how to do it at a low cost for regular consumer stuff, instead of just incandescent bulbs for military stuffs. 

There has been a flurry of activity in coating technologies, and you can see it it the patents. I remember when OCLI started coating all sorts of things with various coatings, even building windows...imagine that!

Anyhow, so I just popped hot mirror and bulb into google...it is really cool how we see so much technology come out of the military and space programs that make our lives better, easier, and safer. Some folks consider space to be a tremendous waste of our money, but the returns from spin-off technologies make the initial costs seem inconsequential. It is too bad that engineering in the US, for the most part, has dropped down to the place among fast food, the garbage man, and secretaries. Oh well.


----------



## Melchior (Mar 24, 2006)

*Also*

The temperature of the tungsten is the key to high output right?

Hotter = More light

BUT if you put too much voltage through it ...snap!... the filament melts and breaks.

Right?

Then the only way would be to make the tungsten get hotter, but NOT melt correct?

AFAIK Something under HIGH pressure will have a higher boiling point.

So sticking a Tungsten wire in a High pressure chamber and putting in 100 atmospeheres of pressure would make the wire able to produce huge ammounts of light. Right?

So as long as you CAN increase pressure then the light can get hotter? (until thermal convection gets in the way)

What about going one step further? A liquid tungsten 'filament'. (don't ask how it stays attached to anything...its Uh... in Microgravity yeah..yeah thats it)


----------



## NewBie (Mar 25, 2006)

Well, I was poking around for something else this morning and ran across this catalog for the OSRAM version of the IR reflective bulbs:

http://www.osram.com/pdf/service_corner/irc_range.pdf


----------



## Handlobraesing (Mar 25, 2006)

*Re: Also*



Melchior said:


> The temperature of the tungsten is the key to high output right?
> 
> Hotter = More light
> 
> ...



You can increase the boiling point, but you can't really change the melting point much and if the filament melts, its game over. Increasing the fill gas pressure should reduce the filament loss through vaporization, but the more gas pressure you give, the closer the gas molecules get together and more conduction loss you have.


----------



## NewBie (Mar 26, 2006)

You could use a negative field on the envelope, if you use conductive materials for the reflective coating such as ITO, to help keep the vaporized tungsten off the glass. Highly advanced HID lights will even charge the reflector, which they claim greatly reduces the electrode deposits on the bulb glass.

I wonder if you could get the bulb envelope charged strong enough negative to help suppress the vaporization of tungsten a bit in the first place, without arcing.


----------



## andrewwynn (May 1, 2006)

Got the lamps from bwaites today, coincidentally also got my new 10A power supply so i'm able to run any of the lamps directly.. it also shows real-time volts, amps and watts which is pretty nice but i have to take the voltage reading at the bulb since there is a considerable amount of voltage drop on the leads. amps works though.. just means i have to calculate the power. 

I did a baseline of voltage and current for each of about 6 lamps at their rated values.. used the rated value to interpolate a lumen per lux and had my light meter at a fixed distance from the lamp socket which i had clamped in a vise so i could swap lamps and get a fair comparisoin. 

since the meter might register different with the IRC (or any other) based on how it prefers to sense the IR, etc and turn into lux.. i did the baseline for each. 

The preliminary resuts put the 64625 about 33 L/W where i run it.. put the 62138 just about 30 L/W.. the 64623 was maybe a little higher than the '625 but at 14V.. 

Now for the interesting part. 

it takes a hellova lotta overdrive but at 18V i was able to measure in the high 40's of Lumen/Watt with both the 50W and 65W lamps.. 

I will get the data tabulated when i can.. in addition.. it's very interesting to note.. that the 50W at least.. runs really darn nice at 14.4.. meaning you can run 63W from the likes of a 'mag100' direct-drive.. and get double the runtime.

The beam promises to be absolutely fantastic.. i only tried with a stock mag reflector and it looked like an LOP.. any of the 'artifacts' were totally acceptable and i'm a picky sob when it comes to beam quality. 

I will be looking into how to get 18V to these lamps in a 3D host very soon.. with 47L/W at 18V.. that means.. are you holding onto something or sitting down? 

with 120W input.. what i measured from the '65w' IRC at 18.0V input.. there is an estimated 3666 TORCH lumen coming out.. it's decently white.. about the same as the USL at that level.. but it's no more power.. 120W is about the same as the USL or the mag100s i make... but 35% more light can be had... i say that is a signifcant thing. 

I'm working on a couple solutions to get the voltage required.. as it turns out.. i'm used to using 4-up GP2000s in a 3D. that is 172mm of batteries.. dividing by 28mm.. the length of the next size down 'A' diameter '2/3A' cell.. I can fit 6-tall. that will fit into a 3D host no problemo at all.. but it's 18 cells which is 21.6V nominal.. will require the likes of the PIR to pull off the voltage transition. 

once i have some more of these lamps that aren't loaners of somebody else.. i'll do some destructive testing and see just how far they can be pushed.. my math shows that if i use current limiting to start them i'm betting i can get 20+ volts.. the efficacy will still probably climb a bit.. i could see reaching into the lower 50s. 

Good news.. the current/volts/watts forumula are working perfectly.. the 'lumen' figure.. that forumula needs tweaking i'll get an updated forumula out if i can figureo out what it takes to tweak it into submission.

So.. i think there'll be a new line of lights on the near horizon.. that use 5xLiON or 15x NiMH for 18V to run these lamps. 

-awr


----------



## js (May 2, 2006)

Good stuff, Andrew. Good stuff.

But I suspect that the estimation will be off in the low direction, because the filaments of the IRC lamps are so much longer and larger in diameter than the others. This will mean less focusing, right? And thus a lower lux reading even for the same amount of light.

Here's what I think we should do:

I think we should pool our funds--you, me, bwaites, etc.--and pay for an integrating sphere measurement of the 64447 IRC or 64440 IRC at a given voltage/current. LSI of Arizona will do a simple lumens measurement at a DC direct-drive voltage you specify for not much over $100, if I remember correctly. So then we can take lumens and divide by power and *REALLY* know the efficiency of one of these lamps *when driven hard*.

What do you think? I'm willing to pitch in $40.

Anyone else?


----------



## bwaites (May 2, 2006)

I'll contribute the same, Jim's got a great idea.

Bill


----------



## litho123 (May 2, 2006)

I'll chip in some too.


----------



## andrewwynn (May 2, 2006)

actually to best estimate the LUMEN output i was taking direct readings from the lamp.. luminous flux is roughly proportionaly to lumens when directly viewed from the filament.. so i took the readings at close to 90 deg. off-axis and pretty close to the lamps to avoid room lighting getting in the way. 

I wouldn't mind getting a real reading of lumen at a few voltages.. say 12V for baseline, 14V, 18V.. it would be *really* nice if they can do 1V steps like i did. 

The reality is.. they are most certainly more efficient.. do we really need to know how much more for our projects? I'm betting that pushed to maybe 19V we'll get them over 50L/W which is amazing, and they are actually usably white.. now i'm a bit concerend about the 50Wers ability to take the voltage based on the obviously more white CCT.. i only tested it to 17V vs 18 because the bulb isn't mine and i'd rather keep it operational. Once i get my hands on some more i'll run them right up to 20V and see how they take it. I'm more interested in 19.85V.. that's a magic number that maths out to 5000 torch lumen for the 65W IRC lamp. at 140W.. that's the same power as running the 623 from 14.4V, but at far less amperage (7.07 vs 9.87).. it's a 'doable' mag-hosted solution.. and imagine.. with 60-80% less IR heat a lot of the problem of the head melting off in your hand will go away as well. Talk about a win-win solution. 

-awr


----------



## HGB (May 2, 2006)

Hey davidefromitaly,

Once upon the time...

interested in OSRAM 65W IRC (1700lm) group buy? By davidefromitaly (Nov 2004)

It wasn't easy to get people to think that the earth was NOT flat either. 

Thanks for persevering!!!


----------



## js (May 3, 2006)

AWR,

Multiple measurements will cost multiple! 12V to 18V in 1V steps would cost at least $700!

We certainly don't NEED it, but having a lab certified lumens number for even just a SINGLE voltage-current point for an IRC lamp would be great. Then from there we could use lux and/or re-rating formulas. Have to think more about that.

But, in any case, the most important question is this:

*HOW LONG CAN THESE LAMPS BE OVERDRIVEN?*

With all of that extra IR staying in the capsule, the temperature gradient from the filament to the lamp envelope will be shallower, which will mean a significantly higher wall temperature and pinch temperature. This will mean a softer glass. And could mean that at some point the lamp simply explodes. According to my Osram publication, this is more or less a function of time and pinch temperature.

So, go ahead and run one of those IRC lamps at a high voltage for an hour or so and see if it explodes or deforms. Don't worry about ruining one of them. Bill got them from me for free. He won't mind if they are sacrificed in the name of science. Go for it.

Just be careful to protect yourself.


----------



## winny (May 3, 2006)

js,

I know spacemarine squenzed one up to 20.2 V before it blew... I have managed up to 19 V somewhere.

I had in mind to test exactly what you said here at a certified lab, but for free/beer rather than $700. I'll try to call them again before the summer...


----------



## Longbow (May 3, 2006)

A tungsten brick 4" X 4" X 8" weighs 89.16 lbs. How many P60 lamp filaments would that make?


----------



## andrewwynn (May 3, 2006)

I think it would be fun information to know the exact lumen output, and i think maybe 18V would be a nice place to use as a reference that we can use the formula from there.. the re-rating forumula can be 'bent' into our needs once we know another point.. i've tweaked it with my 'home brew' measurements, but of course it wouldn't hurt to fine-tune the settings. 

i'm betting that the hour re-rating just like the lumen re-rating will need tweaking. logically.. if the lamp is being heated more with less energy it's the heat that wears out the filament.. the forumula is the voltage ratio raised to the 12th power! to re-ratio hours.. just for kicks i put in 18V and re-rated, but changed to the 13th and the 14th power instead.. the hours at 18V would normally re-rate to 30.8.. with 13th power, it's 20.6, and 14th power it's 13.7. 

i'm lining up a batch of the 50Wers.. i will do some 'burn in' an actually run some bulbs at the likes of 18V and 19V 'til they burn out. 

Very interesting thoughts about the glass temp being an issue.. fortunately with lights that run a max of 12 minutes at a time, i think that will help, as will the IRC, considering i believe the glass is coated on the inside as well as apparently the outside.. it would keep the heat on the inside of the glass.. you can 'see' the coating on the outside, so there is a chance it's only on the outside.. 

Not sure what voltage D.F.I. (i had said spacemarine.. my goof).. actually ran his tests.. IIRC.. he was just ganing up batteries and made a couple assumptions on holding voltage. Fortunately with such a heavy filament.. (4000hr).. they can take some really serious 'startup' abuse at least when they are new. My power supply is 10A max, so it automatically does current limiting unless i tap into my 4F capacitor that i use in parallel for starting 100W lamps.. (4,000,000 uF.. pretty cool stuff)... God only kinows what that thing can output for peak current. ESR is like 15 mohm... it has like 7mm bolts for the connectors.

winny.. great idea about the beer :-D doesn't somebody on CPF have access to an IS? mcGiz or somebody?


----------



## andrewwynn (May 3, 2006)

oh.. ps.. about 300,000 would be my 'rough guess' 

I have about 50# of tungesten.. it's quite an amazing substance in quantity. I put a few pices into a box that holds about 50x 35mm slides.. and it weighed NINE POUNDS!

The big box is amazing.. i tell people to 'pick it up'.. and they are absolutely convinced it's bolted to the floor. 

-awr


----------



## Nubo (May 3, 2006)

andrewwynn said:


> the pressure question is an interesting one, and what effect that will have on lamp life when wildly overdriven. as DFI's experiments showed, they can take a lot more overdrive than we'd have probably tried. I think they will need to have 18-20V to acchieve a color temp we'd be happy with. It looks like they attempted to make the envelope close to spherical, which would make it possible to make a thinner envelope and be just as strong (also they seem to be very small).
> 
> -awr



Interesting. I was speculating that the spherical shape was meant to create a focal point for the reflected IR.


----------



## andrewwynn (May 3, 2006)

i'm pretty sure that's the main reason for the spherical shape.. but a nice 'side effect' of it being stronger.. i'm glad you reminded me of the lower pressure though.. means that it will probably last longer at the more abusive voltages than i'd have guessed otherwise. 

-awr


----------



## Spacemarine (May 3, 2006)

andrewwynn said:


> Not sure what voltage spacemarine actually ran his tests.. IIRC.. he was just ganing up batteries and made a couple assumptions on holding voltage.



You think I'm a newbie? I used a PSU and measured the voltage directly at the two pins of the bulb with a DMM.


----------



## andrewwynn (May 3, 2006)

sorry, i obviously remembered something out of order, i think i might have crossed two people's posts, looking back i confused the initial posts from david and submarine, my apologies.. I see looking back that you actually ran it like i did from a meter. Do you have any of the 35W models still? 

-awr


----------



## winny (May 4, 2006)

Sorry for answering Spacemarine's questions but he doesn't have any 35 W but I will send him a bunch of them soon. I can take one 35 W with me to school and see how much abuse it takes before it burns out...


----------



## winny (May 4, 2006)

Test done. Two Osram Halostar IRC 35W/12V sacrificed their lives for the good cause.

Lamp 1: Blew at 21.94 V and pulled 4.68? A (Can't really see in the picture)
Lamp 2: Blew at 22.70 V and pulled 4.68 A

I'll put up the pictures tonight.


----------



## js (May 4, 2006)

AWR,

No. It won't matter whether or not the IRC coating is inside or outside. The simple fact that it is INSULATING means that the GAS temperature near the wall will be HIGHER than if it were not insulating. Thus the glass will be hotter because the gas will be hotter, and this has nothing to do with how much IR does or doesn't pass through it.

But, yes, the short runtimes of these lights will mitigate the issue. Still . . . we're talking about pretty darn high temperatures. These lamps were not designed to run at these voltages.


----------



## andrewwynn (May 4, 2006)

thanks a ton for doing that winny.. saved me two bulbs :-D.. how slowly did you ramp up the voltage? that's fantastic to have an 'uppper limit' even if it's a '1 second' upper limit... now i will have a lot less fear trying to get hours out of 18V. 

JS, The thing that is missing from your equation.. you i think are making an assumption that the filament is hotter and the gas is hotter.. that's not the case.. it's the SAME temperature (at least close to it) it just takes less power compared to what we are used to.. for example.. the 50W IRC will run at 90W and be as hot as the 120W going into the '625.. the temperature will be about the same as the '625 (filament, gas, glass).. now.. the 625 seems a lot bigger, but it's also higher pressure, not spherical, so the IRC lamps are most definitely predisposed to handle rough treatment.. the IRC is actually larger in diameter than the 625.. evidenced by the fact i had to ream my reflector out bigger 'cause it 'wedged' in when i tried to use my bored out 100W reflector. 

the 21.94 re-rates to between 1.6 and 0.47 hrs with my estimates of re-re-rating (tweaked curve).. which lines up nicely with what i'd expect.. i accidentaly ran an 1160 lamp up to 8.4V before it blew.. and that re-rates to 1.7hrs.. which is right in-line with this. standard formula would re-rate to 2.9 hrs.

at 22.7V it re-rates to between 1.0 and 0.28hrs.. downright amazing that it got that high.. bulb lumens works out to over 6000 BTW.. exponential curves are interesting that way. 

18.5V is my target voltage... bulb life estimates between 6 and 14 hrs. (22 would be the standard forumla).. and i'm pretty confident the lamps will have a reasonable working lifespan in a light that works 10 minutes max at a shot. I'm sure a prototype will be running fairly soon. 

Very true that the lamps aren't designed to be pushed to the extremes, but as long as similar methods are used to make the lamps, (type of glass, thickness, bonding wires, and such).. they should take the similar abuse of the same temperatures. I think it's noteworthy that there are several things working in our favor to pull it off.. like mentioned above.. the temperatures are simlar to what other lamps already run, (CCT is surely related to the filament temp), the spherical design is FAR stronger even if the glass is thinner... hey winny.. can you measure the thickness of the glass now that you have a blow bulb? i have a blown 625 i can do the same... and with the lower gas pressure inside, there will be less stress on the stronger lamp envelope. 

The lamp filament and the glass have no idea nor care what the 'voltage' is.. they only care about the watts that stay in.. and for example, running the '440 at 18.0V will get you just about exactly the same lumen output as the '625 running at 12.6V.. they have got to be very close to the same temperature. 

I found what seems to be a good source for all three IRC lamps, but my german is a little lacking, as in i know two words of german.. i posted on the other thread a link. Mabye some german speaking (reading) brother can check it out, the price seemed to be 4.3 euro without VAT and like 6.6 with. I am attempting to put in an order with the aid of babelfish.. and with any luck i'll reach an english speaking (reading) person on the other end. 

-awr


----------



## winny (May 4, 2006)

awr,

No worries! I have 38 of them left so the reason why I didn't blew more was because my friends didn't want to wait for me any longer. Perhaps I should do the same thing with the 50 W lamps as well. I should have about 40 of them left too.
We ramped at about 1 V / sec and took photos of it as fast as Alexanders camera could manage. We'll try to make an animation of it...

At 22.7 V, I get 3892 K, which is more than tungstens melting temperature if you translate CCT into temperature and just over one hour lamp life.

Photo album available here


----------



## js (May 5, 2006)

Damn it, Andrew, I knew you were going to screw that up.

No. NO NO NO NO!

I am *NOT*, I repeat *NOT* making the assumption that the filament is hotter in an IRC lamp. I am assuming that it will be at the same temp that any other overdriven halogen lamp is.

Look. It's simple. Imagine a completely uninsulated shack with a wood stove in the center. Now imagine the same shack with lots of insulation. Same wood stove, same temperature stove. The only thing that changes is the insulation. Imagine going to the walls in the uninsulated shack. Imagine putting your hands on them. Now imagine doing the same in the well insulated shack.

Got it?

Heat loss is a complicated thing in all of its ugly glory, and I may be missing an important parameter somewhere in all of this, and I am open to correction and discussion, but one thing I am not friggin' assuming is that the filament temp is higher. I've gotten at least THAT far in the fundamentals of lamp physics and the IRC particulars.


----------



## andrewwynn (May 5, 2006)

i think that's what i was originally saying about the IRC holding the heat in to make a higher thermal gradient through the glass. My point is you are working with smaller numbers than i believe are significant.. example.. if the filament is say 5000F.. but the air temp inside is 1000F.. the glass is going to be 1000F on the inside. and if it's 900F on the outside.. i know those #s are not very close but it's just for the story.. now.. use IRC glass.. it means that the 500F and 1000F numbers are the same.. but that the outside of the glass might be 800F vs 900F.. twice the thermal gradient... there sure can be a higher gradient through the gas inside the lamp.. maybe the numbers would be more like 5000F, 950F, 850F.. but if the gas is hotter the filament will be hotter.. means that to keep the filament the same temperature with the gas being hotter.. the glass has to be cooler.. less heat escaping, more energy conserved. 

I think there was just a goof between our thoughts regarding which side of that wall on that shack.. i'm talking about the outside of the wall you are talking about the inside. There will clearly be a higher gradient through the wall. 

It would seem to me.. that with a constant filament temp (same amt of visible light).. insulating will make a LOWER gradient through the gas in the light which follows your line of reasoning.. the average gas temperature inside will be higher, this will make the glass temperature higher on the inside, quite possibly higher on the outside.. but with more of a gradient through the glass.. which is higher stress, but like i've mentioned before.. i think it's a moot point.. the IRC lamps are lower pressure and made like a sphere. 

Sorry about missing the detail about where you came up with the hotter gas temp.. i thought you were saying 'lots hotter'.. i don't think the gas temp will be ridiculously hotter, but it's a very interesting thought about how it will affect the lamp. 

The reality is.. when you take a lamp designed for 4000hrs.. and abuse the snot out of it where the bulb life drops several orders of magnitude.. i believe that the 'over building' required for the 4000hrs, and the coincidence of the spherical shape will over ride any other limitations like the glass heating issues. 

We will be running real-world tests which is the only way to know.. all it means is that yes, we might not get away with 18V for long runs.. might have to use 16, etc.

-awr


----------



## Luna (May 5, 2006)

But if the energy being contained in the shack is in the form of radiant energy then the wall temps and inside temps will be soley dependant on the thermal contribution of the emminating body. 

In the case of the bulb, the filament is the heat source. If the CCT is the same between the IRC and NON coated then the filament temp and internal temps should be the same.(and yes I realize the CCT and actual temp will vary due to the spectral variances. The CCT is easier to measure so it is a good approximation) The dichromic coating of the IRC will obviously alter the thermal properties of the envelope and contained gas a little but the increase of the internal temps yet we are holding the power input down so that the temps are brought back down to the non coated bulbs temps. Internal temps should stay the same but the dichromic coating might decrease the outside temps just a little bit (or even increase it depending on how much of the IR it absorbs itself)


----------



## js (May 5, 2006)

As I said before, heat transfer in all of its glory is a difficult and complicated subject. Radiant, convective, and thermal/kinetic transfers all occur.

Let's not argue about it.

Instead, I was hoping you would simply run one of those lamps at 18 or 19 volts for an hour. Just do it. If nothing bad happens, GREAT! We can stop worrying about it. If something bad DOES happen, well then all the reasoning in the world about why the outside temp of the glass SHOULDN'T BE much higher won't matter.

Why not just do the experiment? You have a bench supply and everything.

I have a pretty stong feeling that we can't push these IRC lamps as hard as we push something like the 62138 or 64655 because the glass will get too hot. The 62138 *at 12 volts* has a stated envelope temperature of 932 F. And we're running it at 12.8 or 13.0 volts for best CCT and efficiency. If we pull the same hotwire madness on the IRC lamps, what will the envelope temperature be then?

And, I know I said "let's not talk about it" but I changed my mind:

The question is whether or not the hotter gas temp near the wall is offset by less IR going through the glass. And this is assuming that the IRC coating is on the *inside*. If it is on the outside, there is no question at all. In fact, the glass would get something close to double the IR: that going out, then the reflected IR coming back in.

If this is a problem, then with each 12 minute or 15 minute burn, the glass envelope will soften and deform, and will do so most at the weak spot(s). Next time, it will get even worse at the weak spot. Then the time after that--POOF!--lamp explosion. It really won't be a great deal if the IRC lamps can only be run for an hour or two total runtime at highest CCT. We'd want to back off a bit if this IS a problem.

But maybe it isn't. There is one easy way to find out. Do an hour long burn. Heck, do two or three 30 minute burns, allowing the lamp to cool in between. It's the one big glaringly obvious possible caveat to this whole thing. Don't you think we should investigate it?


----------



## jashhash (May 5, 2006)

so... Have there been any empirical conclusions of this 60lm/watt theory? I don't care much for theory, just wanted to know if it's been done. Maybe all we have is speculation till we can get our hands on an integration sphere...


----------



## andrewwynn (May 6, 2006)

JS.. i'm going to do a 'real world' runtime test absolutely... which was partly my point about just saying.. well.. yeah it sounds pretty darn hot as hell.. but i think that it can take some serious punishment. I have some nice welding plate to put in front of the lamp while running and a 600W socket to hold it. I was just toying with theory to get a 'best guess' of what target voltage to use. 

My bet is that the envelope temp is not hugely different for 18V IRC (50W) and the 625 lamp.. just based on the very similar performance values.. i will test that theory.. unfortunately my IR thermo only goes up to about 500F, so i can't actually measure the temps. 

My suspicion is that the envelope temp of the IRC 50W will be substantially lower at 12V, and only approach the similar values as we get with the 625 when pushed to similar output.. because of more heat staying in, the glass should be somewhat hotter, but with lower pressure and a stronger envelope, i think it'll be ok.. leading to trying out the experiment.. I don't have any spares yet is the only reason i didn't do it already. I will do my best to keep track of how many hours.. and just run it at say 18.75V and see how long it runs start to finish. 

We are in absolute agreement about real-world bench testing to solve the viability.. it's really the only way to know. 

Do you think i should run 1 long burn 'til exhaustion? my theory on that is.. that i can get the re-rating formula tweaked to get a better idea of longevity.. surely with starts and stops the runtime would be shorter. I prefer if the lamp cost is $1/hr or less, and would like to get on the order of 10 hrs use per lamp. 

The empirical evidence as yet shows that 60L/W will be achieved at about 21V.. a number that pushes the lamp too hard to be reliable, but that can be done just long enough to say it can be done. 50 L/W on the other hand.. at least for short bursts, not a problem.. longer times, to be determined. 

I'm pretty confident that my little experiment is within 5-10%.. about 47L/W at 18V.. so.. that means a range of maybe 42-52 L/W.. but that with any luck.. 19V is attainable which will get solidly into 50+ L/W territory. (at the expense of bulb life of course). 

I think a nice compromise will be in the 17-18V range.. my instinct and experience so far gets me that far. I will be very surprised if i can't get over 17V and very surprised if they work over 19V reliably. 

-awr


----------



## Luna (May 6, 2006)

Andrew an IR wont cut it in a situation like this. You would have to use a high temp thermocoupler. The one I use is the high temp 303-020 1832deg unit 


http://www.thermoworks.com/products/probe/tc_surface.html

and a Therma 3


----------



## andrewwynn (May 6, 2006)

nice! well i will be using the 'seat of my pants' and good old 'trial by error'.. if i can run a lamp at 18V for 2-3 hrs straight i won't be worried about runs for 10 minutes at a time.

-awr


----------



## js (May 7, 2006)

Thanks, Andrew! On the same page now. Sorry.

Good work so far, and this is all definitely very exciting. Heck even hitting 45 LPW is pretty cool, and 50 is that much more rockin'. I'm not paying attention to very many CPF threads lately, but this is definitely one of them.

Oh, and I should mention that I got those two IRC lamps from Ginseng in trade. So they went from Ginseng to me to Bill. Fun, huh? I tried out the 64440 IRC in my USL, but that was only driving it at 13 volts or slightly less, so it wasn't all that much light for 50 watts of power. However, it was lovely, delightful stuff. A very nice light to be sure. I can imagine its that much better at 18 or 19 volts. I remember that it too like 5 seconds (literally) to stop visibly glowing after turn off, and I remember thinking, "Holy cow, there's no way we can overdrive this thing--not with that IRC coating." How very wrong I was! And how happy I am to be wrong in this case.

Honestly, I still think that this is a technological incandescent revolution just waiting to happen. Maybe it never will, but it represents quite a gain in efficiency--a quantum leap forward, really, as big a leap as krypton/xenon fill lamps over vacuum. I don't care if the IRC coatings are old news. So what? They were discovered long ago. Big deal. They have not been put into significant use, yet, although it is beginning to happen, as mentioned earlier in this thread.

So, the short of it is this: YEEE HAAA! IRC is pretty awesome. Bring it on.


----------



## andrewwynn (May 7, 2006)

Yeah per usual, sorry about the confusion.. definitely partly my fault.. you should know by now usually it's more misunderstanding in communication than conceptual errors... we started on the same page we were just using a different language and took a bit to figure out the translation. 

I love it when ideas are shared among CPFers.. very cool when actual product does the same.. these lamps really got around, huh? 

When i did direct-drive in my 4D LiON host.. i was definitely not impressed with the color or quantity of light.. but i already have some IB1400s on order.. i actually got my first order but it was short 4 cells from what i ordered so another small delay before i get it in a light.. very soon i'll have a test light operational though. 

It is stunning to see them cool down.. i compared the 625 lamp and it takes about 80% the time to stop glowing.. it also really takes a while to chill out.. but the IRC are clearly longer, and it's fascinating to see.

Well.. i think there will be a mini-revolution.. this is a quantum leap in performance.. i was going to 'hold out' on some of the details.. to surprise people once the prototype is running.. but it looks like 2000/3000/4000L is just around the horizon in a light that can be pretty easily made.. if you run 15 cells in a 3x2 config in a 3-D 3-bore.. the output would be slightly less than those numbers but no driver required (i think).. not sure if they can handle the startup spike w/o a driver yet.. sooner or later we'll be figuring that out. 

at 2700L, the 50W lamp is consuming about 90W, compared to 120W for the '625.. and that's just plain stunning pure and simple.. runtime numbers are looking like 19, 14, 10 for the 2000/3000/4000L solutions.. and from a hand-held flashlight that is most certainly revolutionary more than evolutionary, so it's quite exciting no doubt.

I don't think there will be a big 'takeover' because i think that LED is going to be the mass market.. but i think in the CPF world.. there will be a shift from 12 cell solutions to 15-18 cell solutions in the very near future... (with 18 a driver like PIR would be required to have any reasonable bulb life.. i'm aiming for 16 cells with regulation to hold 15.5 cells worth of voltage on the lamp)... there is a very good reason why i want to use 16 vs 18, that will come out probably next month. 

-awr


----------



## jashhash (May 8, 2006)

So if I were going to use C-sized Li-Ion's in series to drive this bulb at 15.5 volts with a regulator I would need 5 of them. The minimum length possible in a mag host would be 13.3" (33.8cm) (Assuming that I could find a C-size tailcap switch, and C-size hotdriver). Kind of bulky, but ideal for self defense I suppose... Aren't there any lower voltage IRC bulbs out there, like 6 volts.

If 50lm/watt effeciency could be acheaved it also means less heat per watt. So that means we can put larger wattage bulbs in our lights without them cracking UCL lenses, and such. Hmm... Maybe this wont work though... Maybe if these IRC bulbs trapped the IR heat within the bulb instead of it being projected out the front there might be an increase in heat to the body of the light (Just speculation).


----------



## andrewwynn (May 8, 2006)

sadly, no lower IRC lamps.. also impossible to source in the USA, but i'm working on getting handfuls of them.. if i can get enough of them i would sell them, most likely with a hotdriver or such. 5xLiON will net you 18V btw.. and these lamps really need to be on the order of 17+ v to make it worth the effort.. at lower voltages, the current lamps are whiter and just as efficient. 

at 14V there is already considerable IR still making it out of the lamp.. i'm not exactly sure just how much less IR leaves the lamp.. logic dictates that it's equivalent to the cost savings.. i.e. at 3000L, you are pushing about 125W through the 625.. but 90W through the IRC50W.. so there is probably 35W less IR.. there is still a lot of IR, but likely enough less to not crack lenses.. however.. the runtime is longer. so the energy total could be the same. 

My sense is that very similar issues of heat management are in order.

-=awr


----------



## jashhash (May 9, 2006)

I have an idea that may make it easier to get an accurate estimate of efficiency when comparing these bulbs:
The theory goes like this; As efficiency of a light source increases the wasted thermal energy decreases. So what if rather than trying to measure the lumens of a bulb we measured the thermal energy given off over time. This is a bit confuzing to explain... Maybe I should describe the experimental setup.

Ok. So in this experiment we would have a thermos bottle filled with 100ml of water. Before the experiment measure the temperature of the water. Then put the halogen bulb (with the wire leads sticking out) into the thermos bottle and close it. Then burn the lamp for 10 minutes and after the burn measure the temperature of the water. Subtract the initial temperature of the water from the final which will give you an idea of how much total thermal energy was wasted.
Ok. Now comes the tricky part (The math, which I'm not that great at). based on the change in temperature of the water and based on how many watts the bulb was driven at you should be able to find how much heat was wasted per watt (BTU or Jewels of heat per Watt). Since something like 70-90% of a lightbulb's emission is wasted heat this should be an accurate measurement of a light bulbs efficiency. Now by calculating the total wasted heat per watt we should be able to calculate how many lumens a bulb emits based on it's efficiency. 

The only problem I could forsee is when comparing IRC bulbs to standard Halogen. It might not be a problem... but if the IRC coating of the bulb prevented visible light from escaping then we may not have an accurate comparison of lumens. But if both IRC and standard Halogen bulbs are equaly transparent to visible light then this experiment should yeild accurate results. (But even if the IRC blocked some visible light radiation wouldn't that light be absorbed into the bulb and therefore be converted to heat? I'f so then this experiment would yield accurate results regardless weather or not one bulb was more transparent than the other.)

On a side note: 
I like how the filament of the IRC bulb is positioned vertically rather than horizontaly, this should improve the beam quality by projecting a more round beam shape rather than the oval shape projected by horizontal filaments.


----------



## andrewwynn (May 9, 2006)

That is a really neat idea for an experiment. The IRC coating is nearly transparent to visible light.. if it wasn't there wouldn't be an advantage to the coating, so your experiment is a very logical one. 

you are very correct about the axial vs transverse filament and the improved beam quality.. in addition to the axial position.. the return wire goes down through the middle! it means there is no 'shadow' from the filament wire.. it is usually pretty obvious!


----------



## Sanny (May 9, 2006)

I might be wrong, but IMHO such an experiment would not work, because the bottle and/or the water inside would absorb both the IR and the visible portions of the spectrum emitted by the bulb. So you would end up measuring the total energy emitted by the bulb, which you already know from the electrical consumption, and not only the IR part.

Sanny


----------



## andrewwynn (May 9, 2006)

visible won't make heat.. maybe you have to use a clear bottle for this experiment? so that the light escapes?.. the point is that at the same light output.. there is less power IN on the IRC with just as much visible light out. It would be interesting to know the relative difference. I think measuring the difference in power in (electric) and measuring the heat coming out would be a very interesting experiment, but i think it will just boil down to (bad pun).. the same difference we see between electrical power consumed to make the same lumen. 

-awr


----------



## jashhash (May 9, 2006)

> because the bottle and/or the water inside would absorb both the IR and the visible portions of the spectrum emitted by the bulb



Your right. If traped visible light is converted back into heat then the measurement would be useless. But if andrewwynn was right that visible light doesn't turn back into heat then this experiment would be ok. 



> maybe you have to use a clear bottle for this experiment? so that the light escapes?.. the point is that at the same light output..



That wouldn't work because a clear bottle would allow the IR heat to escape along with the visible light. The only way this would work is if your right in that visible light can't be re-absorbed into heat energy. Or if visible light cannot be efficiently converted back into thermal energy. The reason for using a thermos bottle is that it insulates against both IR heat (with a silvered reflective coating) and conducted heat (with vacume).


----------



## Spacemarine (May 9, 2006)

andrewwynn said:


> visible won't make heat..



That's totally wrong. Visible light produces heat exactly the same way as invisible light when it's getting absorbed by any material. Visible light is nothing else but electromagnetic radiation, only that it can be seen by the human eye, but that doesen't change it's behavior.


The whole experiment won't work unless you find a material that let's all visible radiation pass and blocks all invisible radiation.


----------



## jashhash (May 9, 2006)

Your right this experiment wouldn't work unless it only let visible radiation escape. I suppose it might be relavent to find out what types of radiation are emitted by a light bulb fillament. Do they emit UV rays? Do they emit Microwaves? Radio waves? X-rays? Gama-rays? So to test the efficiency of a light bulb in order to calculate lumens may require an IRC coated, vacum sealed, containment vessel.


----------



## winny (May 10, 2006)

jashhash,

UV, yes, they do. Most halogen lamps either have UV-blocking glass or require you to use UV-blocking glass in order to be considered safe. (I once made an UV-exposure box for PCBs using two 150 W halogen lamps without front glass. It worked like a charm!)
MW, X-ray, Gamma-ray, sure, everything does but a halogen lamp would produce extremely little, probably so little it's even hard to detect.

Haven't we got further away from the subject? An integrating sphere is everything we need to know everything we want to know.


----------



## Luna (May 10, 2006)

winny said:


> jashhash,
> 
> UV, yes, they do. Most halogen lamps either have UV-blocking glass or require you to use UV-blocking glass in order to be considered safe. .



Typically, quartz envelopes require the use of a blocker glass since it is transparent to UV-C . Glass envelopes filter out the harmful UV.


----------



## andrewwynn (May 10, 2006)

maybe that's why WA uses glass vs quartz? I know that the $1000 3000W arc lamp (bulb) i have for the oscar beam outputs just as much UV as visible light, i'm surprised it doesn't output audible frequencies.. they are as high bandwidth as they come... UV shielding (glass lens) will be used in the case of oscarbeam.. the UV output is extremely hazardous with arc lamps. 

-awr


----------



## Luna (May 10, 2006)

andrewwynn said:


> maybe that's why WA uses glass vs quartz? I know that the $1000 3000W arc lamp (bulb) i have for the oscar beam outputs just as much UV as visible light, i'm surprised it doesn't output audible frequencies.. they are as high bandwidth as they come... UV shielding (glass lens) will be used in the case of oscarbeam.. the UV output is extremely hazardous with arc lamps.
> 
> -awr



They probably use glass because they can. Quartz is a pain to deal with because the temperature range of working it is very narrow (it goes from workable to hot short very quickly). 

However, based on the usuage of moly wire and the difficulty in getting some of the WA envelopes frosted, they almost sound as if they are quartz. I havent looked into it so I'm only guessing at this.


----------



## andrewwynn (May 10, 2006)

i made the presumption they were quartz because of how hard they were to etch with the phosphoric acid (now i use sand-blasting to frost bulbs).. somebody corrected me and said they are 'hard glass'. 

look up some time if you haven't.. how they make the 3000W type of arc lamps.. it's just amazing... my favorite part.. how the hell you put in pressurized xenon yet melt the inject hole closed.. it's brilliant: 

They inject the xenon.. close the valve when they get the pressure correct.. then they freeze the bulb to like -100C.. the xenon condenses than freezes to solid, ends up as a pile of xenon snow on the bottom of the envelope.. at this point.. there is zero partial pressure from xenon.. they can melt the tube shut with virtually no pressure on it quickly before the xenon melts and evaporates.. that is beyond clever!

-awr


----------



## mpteach (Oct 14, 2006)

What woudl be the advantage of building a light with one of these IRC lamps istead of going HID? Besides of course the quick start up.


----------



## andrewwynn (Oct 14, 2006)

size, and startup are the primary advantages, plus it's a tricky thing to source small HID balasts and lamps. I have an HID lamp i use (X990) if i need a LOT of light for a long time, but the beam quality and startup of an incan really blow away HID. It's a lot easier for a 'modder' to make an IRC lamp because all you really need is 15 NIMH cells and an IRC lamp. 

-awr


----------



## mpteach (Oct 15, 2006)

How small can a IRC flashlight be made with lithium ion or Nimh batteries?


----------



## andrewwynn (Oct 15, 2006)

Mine is 2D.. quite a trick though.. normally 3D. ONLY with 2/3A NIMH though... LION takes 5xD. (i have one of those too). 

-awr


----------



## mpteach (Oct 15, 2006)

2 or 3D sounds nice.... 

I supose that i could put 15 or 16 Nimh AA's in a 4D mag using 4 AA to D adapters.
hehe Imagine explaining and showing your mod to a lay person... I took a 4D mag, switched in a 12 volt bulb which i run at 18v on 15 rechargable AA's!(16?)Look its that simple!

Would 16 cells and a regulator work noticabley better than 15?

EDIT: kind of too expensive but something like 2 the 8 AA version woudl work nicely for that kind of setup http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=72578


----------



## mpteach (Oct 15, 2006)

Im suprised that you can fit that many 2/3A cells in there. Especially since their thier the fatter A diameter and not AA. 

2D is a great form factor though. Nice in the hand. If you could fit that many Nimh cells you could probably fit 15 rcr123's (5x3 ser/par) or 18 rcr2's (6x3 ser/par) into into a 2D instead.

I really dont see why you need a 5D for lith ion. Even a 4D would work with 14500s wouldnt it?


----------



## mpteach (Oct 16, 2006)

I'm still not clear on weather you need 5 or 6 lith-ion cells to get the right voltage. But if its 5 then i belive you could possibly fit 20 rcr123s into a 3D in a 4x5 configuration. Such a light would be able to pump out 4000L with a very good runtime.

A 2D nimh with poor runtime might be more practical in some situations but not in others a suppose.

Exactly what kind of bulb life are we expecting at these voltages?
Also what is the price of bulbs?


----------



## winny (Oct 16, 2006)

Luna said:


> They probably use glass because they can. Quartz is a pain to deal with because the temperature range of working it is very narrow (it goes from workable to hot short very quickly).



They (probably) use glass because it's cheaper. Although marketing people isn't the most reliable source of information, I have never seen "High quality glass halogen lamp included" printed anywhere but I saw "Uses high quality Philips quartz halogen lamp" on a Thor-copy package once. 
I'm certainly no expert on glass, but I have not to this date seen a glass lamp with UV-block, whereas I have seen quartz being used both when you want maximum UV output _and_ near-100 % UV-block. 
Can you dope quartz so it gets different properties, like you can with semiconductors, anyone? :huh2: 




mpteach said:


> What would be the advantage of building a light with one of these IRC lamps instead of going HID? Besides of course the quick start up.



What awr said + hyper easy to drive, excellent CRI (98-100) and CVD (color vector diagram), meaning that your colors will appear near perfect, cheap bulbs, offers full dimming capabilities (although with a big change in color temperature), contains no Hg or Pb, no shift in color over time, very constant light output over time (if you don't under- or overdrive to the point where blackening occurs of course) and they normally operate under lower pressure than HIDs and are therefor safer.

Don't get me wrong. I love HIDs and I could make an equally long list with HIDs advantages over halogen/incan but you should not rule out old trusty halogens yet.
(You probably should when LEDs have CRIs of 95 and can cope with high powers in a couple of years, but that's another matter.)


----------



## andrewwynn (Oct 16, 2006)

whoa lotsa posts by mpteach.. welcome to CPF by the way (btw).. 

http://smartpak.rouse.com for the appropriate pack for stuffing 16+cells into a mag host. 

15xRCR123... hmm.. say that will get you a 2.1AH pack of 18V.. you can only really run the lowest lamp with that (IRC).. the LION cells are not very powerful.. NIMH kick their butts to high heaven.. 3-6x the power easily.. so really need to have NIMH to run IRC lamps or anything >50W for that matter (other than using the likes of D LION). 

So.. to ans. the question about 5D... because no other LION can push the current required even for the lower current IRC lamps. 

15 cell is a bit under-powered for the IRC but is a 'gimmie'.. you could get away with (but i still wouldn't recommend) direct-drive.. using a regulator to switch it will be a better solution for several reasons including higher efficiency and more light, but also longer bulb life and longer battery life.

16 cell and a regulator is much better because then the lamp can be held in regulation .. brighter and whiter. .. but.. it's annoying because you need to have 2 cells of wasted space since 16/3 doesn't work out nicely... maybe a special pack with 5x3 and a single cell out the bottom or top into the tailcap would be a winner!

If you buy up to 10 bulbs at a time, the slovainan site i use it costs about $7-8 each... the bulb life re-rater is very hard to figure out because the IRC lamps don't follow the rules.. somewhere between 19 hrs (stock calculation) and 5 hrs (bending the curve to account for higher burn rate).. i've not yet burned out an IRC lamp other than ONE that insta-flashed at 19.0V regulated. (65W model). I have about 5 lamps that i've used often but probably not a total of 5-7 hrs on any of them yet.

The 2D light i'm working on for IRC (nickname: 44mag).. has a runtime of between 10 minutes and 26 minutes depending on which lamp (65...25W) is in it.

Nice follow-up on the whys of Incan.. i will add in one more... my 44mag outputs more lumen than my X990 and is about 1/10th the size if that... it's a phenomenal thing to see... when i pull out the X990 and turn it on.. it takes 40 seconds to reach the 'wow that's bright' stage.. the 44mag.. in 2 seconds it makes smoke come off the heel of my black leather shoes.

-awr


----------



## mpteach (Oct 16, 2006)

Do i want the mag irc .44 .357 or .22 ?? 

Exactly how do you fit 15 2/3A cells in there? 3x5??

In a 3 configuration there are probably 3 decent gaps between the 2/3a cells and the tube or 1 decent gap in the middle of the cells. Perhaps you could fill them with AAAA or even AAA cells connected in parallel to make the elusive 16th cell?? 

Lastly, how much regulated runtime with 16cells?


----------



## mpteach (Oct 16, 2006)

We shoudl test these irc lamps to find their usable lifetime. Unfortunatly i took this semster off so i dont have easy access to a good variable power supply.

A good interval test would be a 2 min on a 18V followed by a cool down period timed long enough for the bulb to go below 40C the a 10 min test at 18V followed by another cool down period, and then repeat the process till the lamp blows. The whole test could be automated with a timer. A simple amp meter hooked up to a loging device would tell you how long the bulb lasted. A lumen meter would be preferable since it would tell you not only how long it lasted but also give informatin on lumen maintanence. Of course then you should do the whole test again on say 4 more lamps to find the average blowing time.

Im more of an led man so i wat to know how fragile are the filaments in the IRC lamps? Both when hot and cold. If i drop this light a meter will it break?


----------



## winny (Oct 16, 2006)

mpteach,


Letting it cool down in intervals should not make any differance.
If you overdrive them hard, one meter is probably the limit for a decent survival chance.
When cold, the glass probably breaks before the fillament.


----------



## mpteach (Oct 16, 2006)

winny said:


> mpteach,
> 
> 
> Letting it cool down in intervals should not make any differance.
> ...



So then i take it these filaments are pretty robust. i've dropped quite a few 120vAC bulbs and had the cold filaments break but the glass be fine.


----------



## winny (Oct 16, 2006)

Very good observation mpteach! 120/230 V bulbs suck because they have such thin fillaments. They are just plain and simply bad from all points of view.

Thicker fillament => better impedance matching = longer life, higher efficiency, more robust.


----------



## mpteach (Oct 16, 2006)

Im a painting contractor. I've been painting with my father for years. I use alot of lights. Painting is so much easier and faster with good lighting. It not so good when you cant see what your doing. Most people dont have good lighting inside, epecially older homes, and it gets worse when we cover or remove their lights from the rooms. Its hard to cut in a straigh line when there are shadows. Good lighting speeds things up, but you if you have a whole lot, especially when shown at an agle you'll see a rediculous amount of minute imperfections on most walls that most people dont normally see. But finding the big more visable/important stuff is faster with alot of light. I use Mostly 500W work lights. Their fairly rubust and bulbs are cheap to replace. They get knocked over or thrown around alot. A ceiling bounce is sufficient to light up a very small room. On large walls i sometimes use many lights. When patching i often shine a light down a whole wall. expecially when sanding skimcoats of compound with my power drwall sander/vacuum.
I occasionally use regular 200w or 300w bulbs in those sockets with a 8" refector and a clamp on the bottom. Most 200w or 300w bulb break if you look at them the wrong way but some brands are halfway decent. its sort of a lottery, though not nearly as robust as the halogen work lights. The 1 bad thing abou the halogens is the heat. If you knock one over you have to pick it up fast especially if theres plastic down. i remember once my father knocked one over a small one with no tripod stand. Ironicall we were cleaning up after a small but nasty basement room fire (insurance job), the light started to burn that padding the put beneath carpets, the multicolored sticy kind. I smelled the smoke even though it was very smoky smelling down there already and a had a simple dust mask on. Sorry for the long post...


----------



## andrewwynn (Oct 16, 2006)

I actually recommend the 50W lamp vs 65W lamp and with 16x1400 elite cells you should get about 14 minutes runtime... 

funny thought about the AAAA cells to 'make up' another cell.. the concept has been thought of but no.. i use a 6x3 arrangement with a 'double dummy' spacer. This will fit great into a 3-bore 3D light. To fit into a 2D light requires some serious magic. 

The lamps seem pretty robust against breakage but i've not dropped any while on yet.. we usually use 'kiu sockets' to hold them which lets the lamp wiggle when dropped to less force on the filament (you do have to re-center the lamp after a drop though). They are '4000 hr' lamps.. so the filaments are very thick.. however we overdrive them to 200% normal power at about 18.75V.

As far as testing for max voltage.. winny did that already.. getting several lamps up to 21V or so by slowly increasing voltage.. i run my IRC flashlights at between 18.5 and 18.75V and i've had ONE lamp instaflash at 19.0V (a 65W lamp).. i'm not sure what the flash risk is with 18V pack (15 cells) when direct-driving.. i don't do DD lights anymore, just isn't worth the trouble. 

-awr


----------



## winny (Oct 17, 2006)

mpteach said:


> Perhaps you could fill them with AAAA or even AAA cells connected in parallel to make the elusive 16th cell??



Just in case you wasn't joking... No, you can't. Their high internal impedance will lower your total output voltage and your AAA or AAAA cell will overdischarge and overheat.


----------



## andrewwynn (Oct 17, 2006)

i've been doing some calculations with another CPF member and 'further review' is required to answer particular solutions with paring up parallel AAA.. for example.. 9x2100 4/5A will have extremely low internal resistance, true.. but with parallel AAA, it could be possible with certain lower output lamps to get a balance.. it's very unorthodoxed, and i would only call it 'experimental' for sure, but for example.. 3x700mA NIMH AAA could likely hold 1.2V at 1a each that would match a single cell of 'A' diameter that hold 1.2V at 3A.. It's an interesting thought to get that elusive overdrive cell.. though i would recommend a longer tailcap with a 10th cell up into the tailcap where the spring would be and just keep with identical matched cells of course.. (delvance made a 12xGP2000 light this way).. 

-awr


----------



## andrewwynn (Oct 17, 2006)

p.s. the 'short answer' is much closer to winny's reply.. 'that's a nutso-idea' being the summary. Much better to stick with clean solutions of all the same cell!

-awr


----------



## mpteach (Oct 17, 2006)

Yes, i dont think AAAA would fit in gaps anyways. Im curious as to why the internal impedance wouldlnt match. What is it about the AAA or AAAA cell contruction that results in higher impedance for the same amount of capacity? Is it the length to width ratio of those cells, or is it just hard to manafacture a good low impedance cell that small?

Andrewwynn what exactly do i need to make a 16 cell reglated 2D mag with 50w irc bulb? I will order the parts to build 1 or 2 of them right away.


----------



## mpteach (Oct 17, 2006)

Its unfortunate that i have to take a step back to the Nimh side. I've almost swtiched entirely. For example, I've been semi-EDC'ing a 10.8v bosch lithium i-driver drill. For such a light drill it puts out a lot of power. I never broke open one of the battery packs but its pretty obivous from the shape that it is made uip of 3 cylindrial cell side by side. sigh.

Andrewwynn from what you've told me you cant push a normal li-ion cell that hard, but what bout lights like the orb raw ns? The runtime on those is incredibly short.


----------



## andrewwynn (Oct 17, 2006)

unfortunately 'not that easy'.. with 16x2/3A cells in a 2D light.. there is about 6mm of length between the bat. pack and the lamp.. not a whole lot of 'driver' room. I've invented a special solution for both the bat. pack and the driver to make this possible. 'til that is out i'm afraid 3D 3Bore is the solution to fit. 

The orb raw ruins batteries faster than any light i know.. i have a couple of the lights .. they are neat but they push the cells way past their limitations. a LION cell should never be pushed over 2C which means 30 minutes runtime.. any faster and you'll damage the cell. 

Even in the case of your 'a lot of power' drill.. a NIMH drill the same size could put out six times the power.. the power density is faarrrr greater (of course that doesn't apply to the new LION drills like the v28).. those are a different technology that is similar to LIPO in power density!

-awr


----------



## mpteach (Oct 18, 2006)

How long will it be before you solution is out?? If it will be a long time like say christmas i could build a 2D mag with 32 1/3AA's. (600mah) (Edit:16 2/3AA's 650mah)
Half the runtime but its a good interem solution and i have the free time to build a light now.


Out of curiosity, would your special solution(it needs a better codename) help put 20 rcr123's into a 3D mag? (3000mah)??

Also could you fit 35 primary cr123a's into a 6D mag for an emergency use light? (6500mah)(Edit:just read threads about priamary multicell lights exploding causing an emergency)


----------



## andrewwynn (Oct 18, 2006)

16 x 2/3A is what i use in a 3-bore 3D.. the '44mag' will likely be announced for pre-order mid-november it will be a 4-5 month project if things go smoothly.. my last 3-4 mo project is about 8 months along but close to shipping, so things to slow up the works sometimes. 

Usually using more of smaller cells (R123) doesn't help things.. what is the lamp solution you were interested in trying? 20 cells isn't a useful quantity for any lamp i'm aware of. 

I use primary lithium in series up to 9xAA.. the problem with those exploding cells is pushing them too hard.. funny how cells rated for 1.3A have a problem when you pull 2+A out of them and 'people are shocked'.. i don't push cells far more than rated and i wouldn't have a particular problem with the right set-up with lots of primary cells. like 4S3P CR123 (primary). 

you couldn't fit so many cells into the light you describe because you need to tri-bore the light to fit triangle pattern of 'A' diamter cells.. but the smartpak will let you use any length of stack of cells as long as you can find a light they will fit into... however.. it's exceeedingly rare to find a tri-bore 4D light.. i've only heard of 3 ever.

back to 'the now'.. a tri-bore 3D will host a 16-cell IRC battery pack and works very well.

-awr


----------



## mpteach (Oct 18, 2006)

20=4*(5x3.6v) Honestly i was trying to think of the smallest Li-ion solution or at least one smaller than 5D thats where the 20 came from.3D<5D Anyways.

I should issue a disclaimer that i dont have alot of experience with D cell maglites. Most of my lights ares smaller. I do however have a shake light with a similar diameter and a ruler and im not so sure that a light beyond 10" long will be so easy to semi-EDC. Perhaps though just got my heart set on a 2D and im stubbern. A smallish light puting out big lumens.

Im a bit confused, are you are going to have a special 2D 16 2/3A solution ready in roughly 4.5 months?

I think you could do a 750mah 2/3AA 16 cell quad bore solution in 2D with this cell right now.
http://www.cheapbatterypacks.com/cellinfo.asp?invid=CBP750AA
http://www.cheapbatterypacks.com/main.asp?sid=617999&pgid=loosecells


----------



## mpteach (Oct 18, 2006)

I did look into 18.5V of LiPo packs 2*(11.1v +7.4v).. I could easily fit them with room to spare on every dimention but due to the squaring a circle i couldnt get any more than 600mah into a 2D.


Also you can get 1400mah 2/3A cells, so you can increase your runtime estimates or use the 65w bulb.


----------



## andrewwynn (Oct 18, 2006)

5D is to get 5x LION D cells.. or 18V.. 

you aren't confused, yes i will have a 2D 16x2/3A solution in about 4-5 months is the plan.. it would not surprise me if 4-5 turns in to 7-8 but it's happening and will be pretty much the next thing in the queue.

That is an extremely interesting thought.. quad-bore means a direct-fit.. no spacer.. 16 divides by 4 quite nicely.. and the lenght works out good too.. unfortunately there are no adapters yet.. my 4>D adapter will be a couple months in the making yet.. the 3>D boards are done but i don't have the time to produce them because of my other projects i have to finish first.

LIPO sucks to try to fit into a circle you are correct. 

My runtime estimates use the 1400 cells.. the reality is they are good for 1250mAH.


----------



## mpteach (Oct 18, 2006)

I though youd like that quad bore.

Okay I dont know much about maglights but from they seem a bit long. Are there other compatible 3D hosts that are an inch or two shorter? That would make a 3D 2/3A solution fine for me.

Lastly do i need expensive adaptors or could i just shrinkwrap and do whatever else to make a normal pack.?


----------



## andrewwynn (Oct 18, 2006)

the quadbore is an interesting possiblity i have a customer who's been trying to figure out what do do with his quad bore 2D so i just sent an email. I worked out the math to 14 minutes of 1000L with the 25W lamp or maybe 5-6 minutes with the 65W lamp of 2500-3500L. 

mags are long because they have an entire battery size consumed by the switch body.. partly because of the bigger than needed solution for the switch and mostly because of the silly quick focus mechanism that goes freom crappy close to crappy wide in 1/2 a turn. 

You can get a pack made and shrink-wrapped or you could use the likes of the bat. packs that have been made by modamag or will be made by myself. http://smartpak.rouse.com to see what i mean. 

-awr


----------



## mpteach (Oct 18, 2006)

I can imagine the joys of carrying a mag 'sleeper' light. But i dont mind if i soup up a less ubiquitous and harmless looking host. Im just shooting for 250mm or 10" length and almost 15 min with the 50W bulb. 

Can you recomend a good 3D 3 bore (easy 2/3AA solution) host of that length?
Plus... hehe...I can always buy a 2Dmag special in the future so that solves the problem.

I do like the charging jack on your adapter and it does look realy cool. I'm not so sure though how usefull being able to change cells is. How often does a cell die when the rest have a lot of life left in them?
Also i assume that getting a pack made is a lot cheaper than the adapters. And doubly so if i get an extra pack made. I could easily go either way.

If mags waste a full battery space why do so many hard core CPF'ers mod them? Are there other good hosts?

Edit: 8" 2D quad bore host? thats really handy! Oh i cant stop. Edit2:Thats almost encroaching on 4AA teritory lengh.


----------



## andrewwynn (Oct 18, 2006)

like i said before.. the 3D tribore is the 'gimmie' host for the IRC/16x2/3A.. 

charging jack is the only way to go.. you can't practically individually charge a pack like this.. i have had cells fail occasionally. .it's pretty harmless since i use automatic smart chargers.. what happens is eventually one cell will be zero volts.. and the charger will charge to 15 cells.. you go to turn on the light and it only 'blinks'.. with my pack it means you un-bolt it find the klinker.. charge up a single cell to replace it and back in business. 

people use mag 'cause they are reliable, easy and cheap. most lights have a serious waste of space issue in them, but it makes it fun to modify when you really know what you are doing. you can really get things compact. 

-awr


----------



## mpteach (Oct 18, 2006)

do you have a recomendation for an easy to mod short 3D? I know i said sleeper but so far i've only been ablet to find the $2 Plastic 3D hosts.


----------



## andrewwynn (Oct 18, 2006)

nope, sorry.. my mods are based on mag hosts.. some of the normal routes are to take a 3D and convert to a 4C for an example.. but trying to get IRC into mag is tricky since you need 15+cells.. the 5x3 2/3A is a pretty 'gimme' solution for 3D though.. lots of extra space. 

-awr


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 19, 2006)

andrewwynn said:


> 16 x 2/3A is what i use in a 3-bore 3D.. the '44mag' will likely be announced for pre-order mid-november it will be a 4-5 month project if things go smoothly.. my last 3-4 mo project is about 8 months along but close to shipping, so things to slow up the works sometimes.


Andrew, was reading this thread and finally saw a mention of your 44Mag idea on the previous page. Referencing our recent emails...is this in the idea phase, or is there actually a 44Mag available that works yet? Either way....*in case I miss your GB thread about it, put me #1 on the list when you start the thread,* since this is the first I heard about it....I 100% guarantee I would get one (or several -- depending on the price).

.


----------



## mpteach (Oct 19, 2006)

Last night I bought a 2D mag at walmart. I see why you like them, the reflector is huge! and the price is good. I had the hardest time deciding between the color, grey/silver or light blue or black?. They are all have advantages. I grabbed the grey/silver one before the store closed. The worst part is im still debating whether i got the right one or should switch.

D cell flashlights are by no means small but the 2D is somewhat more practical and a whole lot more impressive to look at so im committed to making it work.:rock:


It would be nice to put the 16th cell in the tailcap but id would rather use the smartpack, that space would be great for a charging jack, a fuse and also tiny kill switch.?


The mag clicky switch only extends halfway into the light, the other half 
of the blue cylinder is just a spacer so you could cut that half out, and bore a 17mm hole in the black switch holder beneath it. That would make room enough for one of the stacks to be 6 cells high.

Obviously you couldnt use the hex screw screw through the switch anymore to keep it in place but you could push the switch in when the battery wasnt there and use a screw at a 45 deg angle. That simple method opens the cell to the possibility of damage if someone pushes too hard on the clicky so so instead you could glue the switch into the holder in place and put few screws down into the top of the holder. If they are along the perimeter they would clamp down onto the rigde above the holder.


Lasty you would have to put the 6th cell on top of the smartpack. You could order some some cells with small wires or tabs attached and just solder one up there, a quick compromise. Or you place the cell on top of the PCB and a spring on top of the cell thats connected to the the lamp. Of course you would have to lenghen one or two of the the smartpack rods to stick 10mm or so above the PCB and keep the smark pack from rotating around if you do that method.

What are your thoughts?:huh:


----------



## mpteach (Oct 22, 2006)

Hey would I need to get some insulation to protect the regulator or top battery like that ceramic fiber blanket JimmyM is giving out?


Also what temperature does the body or bezel reach? will it get too hot to hand hold?


----------



## andrewwynn (Oct 22, 2006)

lux .. covered in email.. 44M will be made in large enough quantities you won't have to worry. 

a 2D maglight stock can host 6xAA w/o modification.. or i think it can fit 6x14650s but i've not built any s.p. up yet to confirm.. and if really lucky the next model of sp will fit 8x14650s.. for a 4AH battery pack that fits into a stock 2D. 

The 15 x 2/3A requires a 3D 3-bore or will require the very special (and still secret and proprietary) solution to fit 16 into a 2D size light.

the solution you propse for the 16th cell is actually pretty clever but i don't think there is enough room. I do have an extremely precise computer model of the mag switch you can download go to http://cpf.rouse.com and i think there is a link there. 

as far as thermal sheilding.. it's not a bad idea at all.. the high-power lights put about 1/4 to 1/3 of their output into thermal energy that goes into the body of the light.. as far as 'how hot'.. that depends on the bat. pack (how long it can run) and the power of the lamp.. when i've tail-standed a mag 625.. i've gotten temps over 200F at the bezel.. fortunately with finned heads it keeps the head and body in manageable level.. there is about a 40-50F difference in temp from bezel to body with the fins... With hotdriver high-power it will monitor the internal temp and shut down the light.. when a light gets to that point.. it will cycle power in such a way that only the very edge of the bezel is ever dangerously (to the skin) hot.. and wont get hot enough to cause an instant burn (i've grabbed a 200F bezel for 1-2 seconds.. it's hot as hell but doesn't cause a burn.. you have time to react in other words.. that said.. i would not touch it to sensitive skin like arm or back of the hand.. the thicker skin of a hand can take it.

-awr


----------



## mpteach (Oct 22, 2006)

Im really not a proponent of the KISS methodology. Mostly because of the stupid. But i have to try everything, so here goes... Its possible to rip out the switch and take a cell with bent tabs on it and drop it in the hole to turn the light on, and pull it out to turn it off heh ...You couldnt turn it on accidentally without the cell and... its the easiest way to fit 16 cells. If the two bent tabs were long springy and properly placed they would make contact when inserted.


For the longest time I thought you special solution was a replacement tailcap. A simple and logical solution. Though now, because you keep using the Pr word and since you have a super detailail switch model (which i couldnt find the link to..sorry) im starting to think that you are making a entirely new switch module combined to a sort of smartpack, a single drop in module. I'll still split my odds thou 35-65.


Im having problems getting real precise (ruler) measurements of the mag. The tailcap has a reduced diameter and it sticks into the tube reducing the usable diameter length of the tube by mm's. Also I read that the bottomost part of the smartpack fits into the tailcap but im not sure how many mm of height the rest of the smartpack adds. Maybe you could help me. Theres no point hacking my switch till i know theres a chance of it working.At least height wise.

Ahh fins... there goes the stock mag look.... Maybe shallow circular grooves wouldnt look bad. Where can I get finned heads and how much do they cost?


----------



## andrewwynn (Oct 23, 2006)

oh that's funny .. it took me a while to figure out what the hell you meant.. actually it almost would work.. it actually might be a viable solution for a shortie 16-cell for 3D (or 2.5D) but would really complicate a bat. pack.. 

My solution is a bit of everything.. there is only 5mm of space from the top of the bat. pack to the bot. of the lamp.. there is no spring in the tailcap (no room).. the light is about 90% battery. I'm 'not at liberty to say' just how i made all of it work. .i want it to be a complete surprise.

You are correct about the problem with the tailcap threads eating up precious battery space.. i had to cut about 1.5mm off the tailcap to make the 44mag prototype.

smartpak adds exactly 3.2 mm to the height of the batteries (2 PCB).. also about 1.8mm in the center top for the nut miniumum.. normal config has two nuts in the center and 3 around the outside top.. but to eliminate 1.8mm of height you can use only the center nut it will work ok. 

finned heads i get from cmacclel for $25 i think.. he lathes by hand,,, so good looks like cnc. 

-awr


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 23, 2006)

:goodjob: :rock:


----------



## bfg9000 (Dec 5, 2006)

Did you guys buy davidefromitaly his pizza yet?


----------



## Ctechlite (Mar 5, 2007)

tag


----------



## LuxLuthor (Feb 18, 2008)

Classic old thread


----------



## TorchBoy (Feb 18, 2008)

davidefromitaly said:


> ok i do a bet
> 
> if andrew read 60lm/w (or more) at 20V with the IRC 35W or 65W (not the 25 or 50W) the guys that doubt about that pay me a pizza





bfg9000 said:


> Did you guys buy davidefromitaly his pizza yet?


Did I miss something somewhere? Which post did Andrew do more than speculate that he could get in the high 50s? :thinking:


----------

