# Light recycling



## trout (Jan 22, 2012)

This here light recycling thing that has been talked about intrigued me and being a 
compulsive meddler I thought I would have a go .
the only results I can offer at the moment are there does seem to be something going on .

I made a few little collars for an XML I had with one of Ahortons aspherics here is a little Gif that Ahorton did with my 2 pics 

I have no lux meter so photos were the only way to get any comparison


----------



## Th232 (Jan 22, 2012)

Looking good, glad to see this being experimented with.

At a rough guess, is your collar slightly off-centre, leading to the brighter bit of the die not being centralised?

If you don't mind sharing, did you make the collar using a mirrored half-sphere with a hole in the top, or some other method?


----------



## trout (Jan 22, 2012)

Th232 said:


> Looking good, glad to see this being experimented with.
> 
> At a rough guess, is your collar slightly off-centre, leading to the brighter bit of the die not being centralised?
> 
> If you don't mind sharing, did you make the collar using a mirrored half-sphere with a hole in the top, or some other method?



Yes could be a little off centre 

the collar was made on a milling machine with a 5 mm ball nosed cutter and polished with the trusty dremel 

heres a beamsot gif of a previous attempt


----------



## Th232 (Jan 22, 2012)

Thanks for the info! Just so happens that I've got a 6 mm ball nose endmill lying around here.

I'm going to have to do this for my own thrower...


----------



## ahorton (Jan 22, 2012)

Subscribed! I'd love to be able to use this tech.


----------



## saabluster (Jan 23, 2012)

ahorton said:


> Subscribed! I'd love to be able to use this tech.



Just keep in mind that this tech is patented by [email protected] I'd be careful with a commercial use of it


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 24, 2012)

Wavien is still only making collars for the Luminous LED's, right? I didn't see any for Cree when I checked last.


----------



## fyrstormer (Jan 24, 2012)

Can you post a picture of the "light collar" you made? I'm trying to understand how something that is essentially a normal parabolic reflector could be patented as a concept as opposed to patented as a specific shape.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 24, 2012)

fyrstormer said:


> Can you post a picture of the "light collar" you made? I'm trying to understand how something that is essentially a normal parabolic reflector could be patented as a concept as opposed to patented as a specific shape.



Here is a link to Wavien with a pic. http://www.wavien.com/index.php/led-recycling-module

Does anyone know how to properly search for patents? It would be interesting to see what the nature of the Wavien patent(s) are. Also I wonder if they have true patents or if the are "patent applied for"?

Saabluster, if it would not be illegal and/or unethical it would be awesome if you could sell P60 type pills with the tech you are using in your DEFT EDC LR and the same LED, albeit with a toned-down driver since it wouldn't have the heatsinking and thermal path of your light. I bet I am not the only one who would be willing to pay good money for that.


----------



## ahorton (Jan 24, 2012)

I only got as far as searching through the Australian patents. My wife is a lawyer so she pointed me in the right direction. 

It looks like they applied for a patent here but never completed it. I can't tell if they got rejected or if they just didn't bother finishing it. 

They do have a patent in the US and it's very thorough. It covers any method that achieves the same purpose even if the method itself is radically different. 

Of course, I don't think any of these patents cover hobby non-for-profit use but I don't know the US system enough to say. I also don't know how the import rules work in the US. I think that in theory, an outsider could make them and sell them into the US, but anyone reselling them there would be in trouble.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 24, 2012)

Thanks, ahorton. If you found the patent info for Wavien can you post a link? I don't know where to find it. Maybe I am too dumb but I don't have luck on the U.S. patent website.


----------



## uk_caver (Jan 24, 2012)

ahorton said:


> They do have a patent in the US and it's very thorough. It covers any method that achieves the same purpose even if the method itself is radically different.


Seems like it might also cover things like making slide projectors with curved reflectors to 'recycle' light that would have been wasted otherwise, or maybe even partially silvering light bulbs to block light in some directions and increase it in others.

At least it might, if they weren't things people had already been doing for decades.


----------



## Th232 (Jan 24, 2012)

Mr. Tone said:


> Thanks, ahorton. If you found the patent info for Wavien can you post a link? I don't know where to find it. Maybe I am too dumb but I don't have luck on the U.S. patent website.



I think it's this one:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...e&OS=wavien+AND+recycle&RS=wavien+AND+recycle

If that doesn't work, look for patent no. 7,976,204.

Interesting how it covers all manner of concave surfaces including spherical, elliptical and parabolic. Spherical is obvious, but it seems to me that parabolic in particular would be near useless. Might just be standard "make it as broad as possible" legal stuff.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 24, 2012)

Wow, that link was intense. I am floored by how much legal jargon and redundant claims/explanations are in that patent info. I don't have a clue how to interpret a bunch of that. In addition I don't know how to discern the difference between the claims of a patent application and what is or can actually be patented and enforced. That is way over my head.


----------



## saabluster (Jan 24, 2012)

Mr. Tone said:


> Wow, that link was intense. I am floored by how much legal jargon and redundant claims/explanations are in that patent info. I don't have a clue how to interpret a bunch of that. In addition I don't know how to discern the difference between the claims of a patent application and what is or can actually be patented and enforced. That is way over my head.



The patent system, at least in the US, is broke and a joke. The radio show This American Life did an outstanding episode on it recently. Will open your eyes to just how disgusting the business world really is.


----------



## ahorton (Jan 25, 2012)

You guys will need to make your own decisions, but I've decided (assuming that we can work out how to do it well), that I'm happy to use the technology for two reasons:

1. They don't have a patent here in Australia.
2. Reflectors have been used in ways similar to this in the past, so the patent is not very strong.


----------



## trout (Jan 25, 2012)

pics of the collar used in the beamshots










2 slightly different ones will be in the mail today for you to have a mess around with Ash


----------



## ahorton (Jan 25, 2012)

Looking forward to it!


----------



## psychbeat (Jan 25, 2012)

Whoa- I wanna make one!

Maybe I could take the dremel to one of me old SMO reflectors...

I'm happy this is being experimented with garage style.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jan 25, 2012)

It would simplify it if there were a reflective coating that could be applied to the dome that is already there. Too bad there isn't such a thing available to us hobbyists..


----------



## alpg88 (Jan 25, 2012)

there was a guy here some time ago, claiming they made brightest flashlight using this tech, predicted bright future for it, well noting materialised, their light is sold for 600 as prototype on their site, not very practical light, has fan in the head and not waterproof, i wouldn't take it out in rain. it's indoor light.

this colar is in the way of reflector\tir, which are most common optic types, it wont interfere with a convex\aspheric lens, but those types are few in numbers, and not realy practical. and have higher losses.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 25, 2012)

saabluster said:


> The patent system, at least in the US, is broke and a joke. The radio show This American Life did an outstanding episode on it recently. Will open your eyes to just how disgusting the business world really is.



I will have to look into this show you are talking about.


----------



## psychbeat (Jan 25, 2012)

Off topic- 
This American Life RULEZ!

on topic - 
I like the reflective tape idea


----------



## fyrstormer (Jan 25, 2012)

It seems to me that they're trying to patent reflective surfaces with light bouncing off them.


----------



## CKOD (Jan 26, 2012)

bshanahan14rulz said:


> It would simplify it if there were a reflective coating that could be applied to the dome that is already there. Too bad there isn't such a thing available to us hobbyists..



I cant remember if XM-L's have a glass dome or not. I know SST-50/90's do. If you put a masking on the tip of the dome (with wax or something similar). And the rest of the LED too, and used a silvering solution to chemically deposit silver on the glass then add a high temp protective coating on the back of the silver, remove the masking, you could. 

Or for a no-spill reflectored light you could silver just the tip of the dome and light would only come out of the sides.
I wonder if CVD aluminum would stick to an XM-L dome, and hold up if youre not poking at it. Thermal expansion and contraction would probably cause issues.


----------



## ahorton (Jan 26, 2012)

I've pondered a similar thing, but my ideas were much lower-tech. I was just going to try one of the chrome/mirror spray paints. They don't make excellent mirrors, but I figured that if it worked a little bit, then you could try it with something better. I imagined finding the right sized straw and holding it over the dome and spraying the bit not covered.


----------



## evilc66 (Jan 26, 2012)

Using the chrome paint as a front surface reflective material will not be that effective. Applying it to the dome of the LED should give you much better results. We used paints like this for RC car lexan bodies. Looking at the paint itself, it was dull, but once you look at it from the outside of the shell (these lexan bodies are painted from the inside), it was pretty damn shiny. I'm sure the same effect will be true of spraying it on the dome of the LED. One probelm I see is that most of those paints are laquer based, and may damage silicone domes like those found on Cree and Luxeon LEDs.


----------



## PMM (Jan 26, 2012)

Is this not just the same effect that used to be used in old theater spot lights ?

i.e bouncing the light from the sides of the bulb around a ball sphere back to the focal point/light point to maximise forward projection.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jan 26, 2012)

evilc66: good info! I knew that it couldn't be used as a reflective front-surface coating, but it makes sense that it would work much better when painted onto a clear, smooth surface and viewed from the other side. Instead of being all rough from the paint particles, the surface would be as smooth as the surface it was applied to. Unfortunate to hear that the lacquer may damage the domes that LEDs use these days, but might be interesting to try it on an XR.

PMM: yep, same idea. When you use a lens, the light that doesn't hit the lens is essentially thrown away. Even if you use a reflector, the image of the LED in the reflector is what is transformed out the lens. This collar just throws the light back at the emitting surface to make it brighter, since that light would be discarded otherwise. I've also observed this technique being used in automotive headlight projectors for quite a while.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 26, 2012)

evilc66 said:


> Using the chrome paint as a front surface reflective material will not be that effective. Applying it to the dome of the LED should give you much better results. We used paints like this for RC car lexan bodies. Looking at the paint itself, it was dull, but once you look at it from the outside of the shell (these lexan bodies are painted from the inside), it was pretty damn shiny. I'm sure the same effect will be true of spraying it on the dome of the LED. One probelm I see is that most of those paints are laquer based, and may damage silicone domes like those found on Cree and Luxeon LEDs.



Ooh, I wonder if that concept could produce good results? Since the dome is so small I wonder if it would be hard to not block the front view of the LED? Also, if the dome itself would be the right angles and stuff to reflect the light rays back at the die?


----------



## saabluster (Jan 26, 2012)

Paint won't work guys. Sorry. Mirroring however will but not on the XP or similar packages. The dome must be glass and relatively large unlike the XR dome. There are more factors to consider but I will leave it at that. Making a ring out of aluminum like trout did is probably the best way for the DIYer. Can see reasonable results from that.


----------



## Microa (Jan 26, 2012)

May I ask how to calculate the optimal size of the aperture.


----------



## Th232 (Jan 26, 2012)

I'd take a cross-section of the LED, recycling collar and the aspheric used. Trace rays to the edge of the aspheric, then ensure the aperture doesn't interfere with those rays. That way you're only capturing light that isn't collected by the aspheric.

From there I suppose you could make the aperture smaller, resulting in a more intense but smaller projection.

That said, I'd like to hear from Saabluster and Trout if I'm off base on any of the above.


----------



## RoGuE_StreaK (Jan 26, 2012)

Call me dense, but... why don't the aspheric lovers use reflectors to funnel the wasted side-light forwards??


----------



## ahorton (Jan 27, 2012)

RoGuE_StreaK said:


> Call me dense, but... why don't the aspheric lovers use reflectors to funnel the wasted side-light forwards??



Well I'm not into name-calling, but I'm happy to answer the question: The reflector would need to operate around the side of the lens, making the whole housing much bigger (in which case a bigger lens would have been a better choice). The standard (ideal) reflector sends light forward in parallel rays. If parallel rays hit the lens, they will converge and then ultimately diverge giving a wide beam.


Th232, One thing I'd add is that the edge of the lens doesn't work very well since a lot of light is reflected. So the optimal aperture will probably be just a little bit smaller but I'd need to experiment to confirm this.


----------



## saabluster (Jan 27, 2012)

Th232 said:


> I'd take a cross-section of the LED, recycling collar and the aspheric used. Trace rays to the edge of the aspheric, then ensure the aperture doesn't interfere with those rays. That way you're only capturing light that isn't collected by the aspheric.
> 
> From there I suppose you could make the aperture smaller, resulting in a more intense but smaller projection.
> 
> That said, I'd like to hear from Saabluster and Trout if I'm off base on any of the above.


Mostly right. Everything until right there at the end. Shrinking the aperture will not make a smaller projection. Only changing the source size or a change in the focal point of the lens will achieve that. Otherwise you were spot-on.



RoGuE_StreaK said:


> Call me dense, but... why don't the aspheric lovers use reflectors to funnel the wasted side-light forwards??


Because lenses operate on a focal point. Any optical surface, be it a glass lens or a reflector, can only redirect light one way. It cannot bend light one way for light coming from the middle and simultaneously bend light a different way for light coming from a completely different area. 



ahorton said:


> Th232, One thing I'd add is that the edge of the lens doesn't work very well since a lot of light is reflected. So the optimal aperture will probably be just a little bit smaller but I'd need to experiment to confirm this.


"Optimal" depends on the goal. There is a point where one must pull back from trying to get more throw if the beam becomes too narrow to use. The edge is less effective than the center that's true. This however is more a concern with short focal length lens. I would say the "optimal"(let's assume max reasonable throw) aperture would have to conform first and foremost to the lens. As in the lens drives the design. Find the longest focal length lens you can find that allows the beam size to stay within the desired boundaries of width and then have the collar reflect everything left over.


----------



## RoGuE_StreaK (Jan 27, 2012)

OK, I think I get it... so it's a case of if the light's not entering the lense at the desired angle, you'd rather not have it go anywhere fullstop, ie. if it's not getting funneled straight ahead it's no good to you? So the light recycling idea is to at least possibly make some use of this wasted light by using it to further excite the phosphor?


----------



## saabluster (Jan 27, 2012)

RoGuE_StreaK said:


> OK, I think I get it... so it's a case of if the light's not entering the lense at the desired angle, you'd rather not have it go anywhere fullstop, ie. if it's not getting funneled straight ahead it's no good to you? So the light recycling idea is to at least possibly make some use of this wasted light by using it to further excite the phosphor?



Right.


----------



## Th232 (Jan 27, 2012)

saabluster said:


> Mostly right. Everything until right there at the end. Shrinking the aperture will not make a smaller projection. Only changing the source size or a change in the focal point of the lens will achieve that. Otherwise you were spot-on.



Thanks for the correction. Having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around this though, if shrinking the aperture won't make the projection/beam smaller, what will happen if you reduce the aperture to just a pinhole? I get this nagging feeling that something's got to give, and if it isn't the projection size I'm not sure what it is...


----------



## saabluster (Jan 27, 2012)

Th232 said:


> Thanks for the correction. Having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around this though, if shrinking the aperture won't make the projection/beam smaller, what will happen if you reduce the aperture to just a pinhole? I get this nagging feeling that something's got to give, and if it isn't the projection size I'm not sure what it is...


Assuming you had a lens who's focal length was short enough to fit in a light the result would be a very dim projection of the LED. The size of the beam would not change with a pinhole only the intensity.


----------



## trout (Jan 27, 2012)

From the small amount of tries I have done I made 5 collars and tried them with the last being the best result 

it seems quite critical A the aperture and B the size and distance from the leds dome of the collar 

for the XML I tried them on , the best collar was made using a 5 mm ballend milling cutter plunged in to the aluminium 2.6 mm 
and I started with a 3 mm aperture then opened it out to 3.5 mm I was going to open it a bit more but was evicted from the lounge by she who must be obeyed .

That collar and a couple more slightly different are in the mail to Ash for more experiments.

Interesting comments from folks thanks for chipping in


----------



## Th232 (Jan 27, 2012)

saabluster said:


> Assuming you had a lens who's focal length was short enough to fit in a light the result would be a very dim projection of the LED. The size of the beam would not change with a pinhole only the intensity.



Ahh yes, that makes sense now. Thanks for the info!


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 27, 2012)

Saabluster, is there a possiblity that you could or would make some P60 type pills with your XP-C and LR tech for sale? Again I don't know how to properly interpret all of the ridiculous patent jargon so I do not know if that would be unethical or not.


----------



## saabluster (Jan 27, 2012)

Mr. Tone said:


> Saabluster, is there a possiblity that you could or would make some P60 type pills with your XP-C and LR tech for sale? Again I don't know how to properly interpret all of the ridiculous patent jargon so I do not know if that would be unethical or not.



I have limited time and resources and right now they are not focused on parts of flashlights but whole units. I know there are quite a few people who would love to have them but I just can't get to it right now. Keep in mind that I do what I do because I love what I do. I am very determined to have design moved forward in a holistic approach. I don't think in terms of parts but as a whole. As such I don't have much interest in pushing parts. Hope that makes sense.

If I get to a place where I can do it I probably will end up licensing Wavien's tech. It is very expensive though simply to license. Then I still have to find a way to manufacture the collars. This I have found a way to do by the way but it is not cheap. I just have not attempted to manufacture them in quantity since doing so would put me in a difficult situation legally. I would guess the cost it would add to a light to be about $100 when all is said and done. Wonder how many people are willing to pay for the added performance?


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 27, 2012)

saabluster said:


> I have limited time and resources and right now they are not focused on parts of flashlights but whole units. I know there are quite a few people who would love to have them but I just can't get to it right now. Keep in mind that I do what I do because I love what I do. I am very determined to have design moved forward in a holistic approach. I don't think in terms of parts but as a whole. As such I don't have much interest in pushing parts. Hope that makes sense.
> 
> If I get to a place where I can do it I probably will end up licensing Wavien's tech. It is very expensive though simply to license. Then I still have to find a way to manufacture the collars. This I have found a way to do by the way but it is not cheap. I just have not attempted to manufacture them in quantity since doing so would put me in a difficult situation legally. I would guess the cost it would add to a light to be about $100 when all is said and done. Wonder how many people are willing to pay for the added performance?



Thanks for the reply and explanation. 

While on the LR topic, have you tried your XP-C LR tech in the original DEFT host or even something bigger? Have you achieved one million candlepower yet? I remember you saying that you had reached 700,000ish and that was before your produced the DEFT EDC LR.


----------



## saabluster (Jan 27, 2012)

Mr. Tone said:


> Thanks for the reply and explanation.
> 
> While on the LR topic, have you tried your XP-C LR tech in the original DEFT host or even something bigger? Have you achieved one million candlepower yet? I remember you saying that you had reached 700,000ish and that was before your produced the DEFT EDC LR.



Yes I did try the edc LR light engine in the original DEFT. That is how I achieved the last reported world record for an LED flashlight. I've done far beyond that with larger lenses but just have not reported it because I don't really consider a lens that is larger than what we all tend to consider flashlight sized to be of any real note. 1.6mil lux is I believe the highest I got with a 6" lens. My current R+D parts are far more powerful now though. I would caution that although I can achieve amazing numbers to some extent they are just that. You would not want to actually use the XP-C with a 75mm lens like the original DEFT had. I will not release a product simply trying to maximize the numbers. If I told you what the real potential I see with current technology is it would blow your mind. Bringing all the technology together in one package and trying to sell it would be very costly at this time though. But far from impossible


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 27, 2012)

saabluster said:


> Yes I did try the edc LR light engine in the original DEFT. That is how I achieved the last reported world record for an LED flashlight. I've done far beyond that with larger lenses but just have not reported it because I don't really consider a lens that is larger than what we all tend to consider flashlight sized to be of any real note. 1.6mil lux is I believe the highest I got with a 6" lens. My current R+D parts are far more powerful now though. I would caution that although I can achieve amazing numbers to some extent they are just that. You would not want to actually use the XP-C with a 75mm lens like the original DEFT had. I will not release a product simply trying to maximize the numbers. If I told you what the real potential I see with current technology is it would blow your mind. Bringing all the technology together in one package and trying to sell it would be very costly at this time though. But far from impossible



Is the reason we woudn't want the XP-C in the original DEFT because the projected image would be to small/unusable? What about the XR-E EZ900, then? I have to admit I am quite excited after reading your post. It is almost unbelievable that you achieved 1.6 million candlepower with a mere 6" diameter! Do you plan on making any original DEFT lights with LR or is the EDC LR going to be the only light for a while?


----------



## saabluster (Jan 28, 2012)

Mr. Tone said:


> Is the reason we woudn't want the XP-C in the original DEFT because the projected image would be to small/unusable? What about the XR-E EZ900, then? I have to admit I am quite excited after reading your post. It is almost unbelievable that you achieved 1.6 million candlepower with a mere 6" diameter! Do you plan on making any original DEFT lights with LR or is the EDC LR going to be the only light for a while?



Yes the XP-C would have too small a beam in the original DEFT. The EZ900 would IMO be too small too. With a single lens system anyway. The pre-collimator I used for a while helps enlarge the beam so it could probably get away with the EZ900 but a single glass lens would have too small a beam. I'm not going to speculate what I will be releasing and when. Partially because even I don't know. I have a bunch of ideas and things I want to do and while I will be pretty sure about a certain path for a while inevitably something comes up and I end up changing course. I am of course working on _something_. I always am.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 28, 2012)

saabluster said:


> Yes the XP-C would have too small a beam in the original DEFT. The EZ900 would IMO be too small too. With a single lens system anyway. The pre-collimator I used for a while helps enlarge the beam so it could probably get away with the EZ900 but a single glass lens would have too small a beam. I'm not going to speculate what I will be releasing and when. Partially because even I don't know. I have a bunch of ideas and things I want to do and while I will be pretty sure about a certain path for a while inevitably something comes up and I end up changing course. I am of course working on _something_. I always am.



It's good to know you are always working behind the scenes. We have to be able to keep our hopes up on the next best possible LED thrower.

How would an XM-L driven to 3+amps and using LR fair in the original DEFT host? Pretty good CP and a useable beam size?


----------



## Paul Baldwin (Feb 28, 2012)

Hi Trout,
any more news on this experiment? I was wondering if it would benefit my diy led retrofit projector, it's using an xm-l @3Aish with a collimator lense and 66mm main lense at the mo.

Thanks

Paul


----------



## saabluster (Feb 28, 2012)

Mr. Tone said:


> How would an XM-L driven to 3+amps and using LR fair in the original DEFT host? Pretty good CP and a useable beam size?



It would make a beautiful beam to be sure. That said the original DEFT host could not handle that kind of power running through it.


----------



## fyrstormer (Feb 28, 2012)

saabluster said:


> Assuming you had a lens who's focal length was short enough to fit in a light the result would be a very dim projection of the LED. The size of the beam would not change with a pinhole only the intensity.


In fact, I have taken some pinhole-projector photographs of my lights just for fun, using this exact principle.


----------



## trout (Mar 1, 2012)

saabluster said:


> It would make a beautiful beam to be sure. That said the original DEFT host could not handle that kind of power running through it.



Here is a shot of an xml in one of Saabluster`s Defts ( Sorry Micheal but I couldnt resist ) at 2 amps 
and 200 metres from the old barn 






and 200 metres from the trees


----------



## saabluster (Mar 2, 2012)

trout said:


> Here is a shot of an xml in one of Saabluster`s Defts ( Sorry Micheal but I couldnt resist ) at 2 amps
> and 200 metres from the old barn



Looks nice in the pictures but better in person. 2A is about the limit of the original power pathways. Above that and you have to replace the springs on the driver housing with heavier duty components and beef up the battery holder. I like the XM-L due to it's larger beam size and generally more round appearance due the the dome warping the image but to get good performance it really needs a lot of juice.


----------



## brighter (May 23, 2012)

I'm not quite in the story, but have You considered larger recycling spherical collar?
Wouldn't it redirect light more precisely back to the led die?

like this:


----------



## ahorton (May 24, 2012)

I suspect you are correct.

Troutie made some nice small ones but I could never get them to give particularly good results. I think they were just too sensitive to alignment. Bigger ones may be easier to align.

They'll need to be made on a lathe.


----------



## jashhash (May 29, 2012)

This is a really cool concept, I'm impressed since I haven't seen someone explore this light recycling method before. This light collar would be perfect for use in an aspheric lens setup since the problem with aspheric lenses is there is a lot of waste & unusable side spill light. I think that if someone wanted to make a small production run of these that there would definitely be at least 300 buyers from this forum.


----------



## Walterk (May 29, 2012)

You will need a perfect spheric reflector for that. A parabolic wont cut it.












 
Pictured is the Ahorton lens, XR-E and for scale 10x10mm heatsink.
 Precision is what counts, not something I will attempt to make myself. 
Wonder how the balance would shift between throw and lumen. 
I think we need someone like Ahorton to ask a quote for a lot of electroformed pieces. I think feeler for pre-orders



 

I tested with a chromed aluminium reflector and got more then 10% increase in [email protected] meter.
The reflector left only a small beamangle outwards so it was useless for any application I would think of but building a white laser. 
Member Ra told me then my set-up was not reliable. I measured bare led. For good measurement you would need an aspheric set up.
He told me you would need an spheric reflector.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (May 29, 2012)

Good thing sphericals are easier to make ;-)


----------



## RoGuE_StreaK (May 29, 2012)

Semi off-topic, but as per figure 1 of Walterk's post, does anyone know of some user-friendly software that allows you to manually draw a curve (reflector) and see its effect on beams? Just a simple step up from manually drawing lines / calculating reflection angles, no major simulation. Either freeware/GNU/shareware, not one of those $20,000 industrial ones.
Of course if it could do refraction as well as reflection that'd be pretty useful...


----------

