# Hi-Power weapon light in development?



## BVH (Apr 3, 2009)

Wonder if there is anything to the rumor that AE Light is developing a weapon light for military use? It's supposed to be a military grade, 2-level, 50-70 Watt light producing 7,000 to 8,000 Lumens. Beyond that, rumor says they may produce a non-military version with the same output if interest is gauged high enough. Depending on price, that's something I might consider adding to my inventory.


----------



## XeRay (Apr 3, 2009)

BVH said:


> Wonder if there is anything to the rumor that AE Light is developing a weapon light for military use? It's supposed to be a military grade, 2-level, 50-70 Watt light producing 7,000 to 8,000 Lumens. Beyond that, rumor says they may produce a non-military version with the same output if interest is gauged high enough. Depending on price, that's something I might consider adding to my inventory.


 
BVH, your rumor very possibly (maybe even likely) is true. They do have a 50/70 watt ballast under development. 

One downside they (shown on their website) use a South Korean made "70 watt" bulb for 50 and 70 watt use. We have tested this exact bulb (the manufacturer wants us to buy from them (S.Korea)). This S. Korean HID bulb is not close to the capability, dependability, output (lumens) or lumens maintenance (life), of either of the Philips DL-50 versions. In fact one of the new "70 watt" bulbs went bad in our FAA testing and "took out" one of our ballasts after only a few hours of use. 

We have NEVER had ANY bulb "kill" ANY ballast prior to this. "Caveat", we do not test a lot of Asian made HID bulbs, in fact very rarely do we bother, most are junk compared to Philips, Osram, GE.

To be SURE it was the bulb that killed the ballast we tried a second ballast and the SAME bulb AGAIN damaged the 2nd ballast as well.


----------



## BVH (Apr 3, 2009)

Thanks for this info, Dan! Any ideas on what the technical reason is for a bulb taking out a ballast?


----------



## windstrings (Apr 3, 2009)

sounds like it must have shorted rather than a mere open circuit.


----------



## XeRay (Apr 3, 2009)

BVH said:


> Thanks for this info, Dan! Any ideas on what the technical reason is for a bulb taking out a ballast?


 
The impedence went too low and became close to a short, this is an issue with the chemical mix (fill) and possibly electrode material and or electrode size. This is after the arc is established.

The bad bulb (& all HID bulbs) reads infinite resistance (open) when not in use with an ohm meter, as it should.


----------



## XeRay (Apr 3, 2009)

Note: I edited my first post in this thread for clarity and some additional detail information. Please reread post #2 if so interested.


----------



## Patriot (Apr 3, 2009)

After reading Xeray's posts it seems that there are some serious hurdles to overcome. They may have to ditch that bulb type entirely. It's great to hear Dan's take on this because I highly respect his technical prowess on this subject matter. I don't think there's anyone who I trust more when it comes to data. 

What HID enthusiast wouldn't be interested in 7000-8000 lumen HID light from AE Light?! I think is very exciting actually.There would be a few requirements though, the first being a 4200-5000K bulb color temperature which would be a new concept for AE light. They've always missed the mark in that regard and perhaps have more complaints about rainbow effects than any other brand.

Next would be size. Considering AE's intention to develop a light for weapons, I'll assume it would be relatively small which is a good thing. I don't have much use for lights that I can't easily carry into the field. The problem I'm anticipating though is that 70-80W HID's normally aren't that small. If it came down to them developing a 50W light with a trim, sleek, user friendly design, and a 70-80W Goliath that I'd rather not get too far away from my truck with, I'd of course prefer the 50W light. A variable 30-50W would be even better yet. Considering that AE currently makes nothing that's a step up from their 25W Xenide, this would seem the logical approach to me but I'm not well informed of their market strategy or military contracts that they're after. 

Lastly the price would have to be reasonable. Surefire and Polarion but do weapon systems now but the price is extraordinary because of all the development work needed to meet military demands. If they're offering to produce a civilian version of a $3000-5000 light that would of course be interesting from a technical standpoint but frankly out of my budget. It would have to come in at a price point that made it an attractive alternative the the Polarion PH or X1 series. I'd go further to say that they'd have to significantly beat Polarions price point because if it was close I'd have to go with Polarion because of their track record.

I hope it's a possibility for AE because I'd like to see some more competition out there. Who knows, it might even inspire the implementation of updated battery capacity on Polarion's part.


----------



## Lips (Apr 5, 2009)

.




I hope they do as we should have lots of options for 2009 and 2010...



This is a single stage 35 watt ballast (Asian) in a handheld prototype using Premium bulb.










I've seen test version of round 30 - 70/80 watt *Dual-Stage* Asian ballast around also... 


Military has enough lights we need civilian lights :naughty:




.


----------



## crazymod (Apr 7, 2009)

They always keep the good stuff for the military what ever happened to the 2nd amendment i should be able to get the 2d 100w:kiss: hid lights just like the military :scowl:


----------



## Patriot (Apr 7, 2009)

2nd amendment....HID lights? :thinking:

There are no restrictions regarding the civilian ownership of HID lights. The original poster was just stating that he heard rumors of AE Lights producing a model where its efforts would be directed toward military specifications. Traditionally the only restriction for most normal people is price since the three most well known brands cost between $3000-$5000.


----------



## ampdude (Apr 8, 2009)

XeRay said:


> The impedence went too low and became close to a short, this is an issue with the chemical mix (fill) and possibly electrode material and or electrode size. This is after the arc is established.
> 
> The bad bulb (& all HID bulbs) reads infinite resistance (open) when not in use with an ohm meter, as it should.



That sucks. I've always been a bit leary of the longevity of some of these cheaper Chinese HID's. I really don't expect most of them to live a long, productive life.


----------



## Lamphead (Apr 8, 2009)

The HID ballast can not take the short circuit, gets damaged and it's the bulb issue? I don't think so. This is the ballast issue. HID ballast basically is a current source. In other words, it limits the current to the bulb. If it can not cope with the short circuit condition, it's the ballast design or quality issue.

At starup, the ballast should supply no more than 2.5A current to the bulb, no matter how low the impedence the bulb has. Usually, when bulb is started cold, the impedence starts out low. Ballast should effectively limit it to 2.5A max. If the ballast can not do that, it is the ballast to be blamed of not regulating the current properly.

Excuse me, but just getting upset seeing people always casting blames on others as excuse of their own product issue. A popular target is Chinese product. Ironically, it seems that every HID ballast maker has some sort of design / production relationship with Asian companies.


----------



## XeRay (Apr 8, 2009)

Lamphead said:


> The HID ballast can not take the short circuit, gets damaged and it's the bulb issue? I don't think so. This is the ballast issue. HID ballast basically is a current source. If it can not cope with the short circuit condition, it's the ballast design or quality issue.
> 
> Excuse me, but just getting upset seeing many people always casting blames on others (a popular target is Chinese product) as excuse of their own product issue...


 
A short at the beginning of the start cycle is one thing, a short (Very Low impedance) that develops suddenly during or close to "steady state" operation is quite another. I know of no ballast that can handle this bulb failure mode well if at all. The well made Automotive ballasts do NOT handle this but you are telling me the Asian made ballasts can?? BS.

The ballast did not fail during startup but 20 or more minutes into testing operation. The 2nd ballast failed within 5 minutes. Testing equipment was hooked up to monitor all "vitals" during the testing being done for FAA certification.

If what you say is correct, how come out of 10s of thousands of ballasts we've made and sold using only GE, Philips or Osram HID bulbs, we have never had or seen this problem before, N*EVER BEFORE ???*


----------



## Lamphead (Apr 8, 2009)

When the lamp is in steady mode, the power should be regulated, which means the current ballast should supply is even lower. A 35W bulb at steady state, is nominally 85V and at 65V the lowest. That requires the ballast to supply approximatelt 0.54A current max. If a short circuit condition occurs, the ballast should be regulating the current to no more than 1A. If the ballast can not do that, it's telling me that the ballast's power regulation is not effective. No auto HID ballast can do that? Hella, AL, old OSRAM (not in headlight EB business any more) 35W ballasts, just to name a few, can all do that...that's a basic requirement of the HID ballast.

Did I talk about the Asian made BALLAST and saying they are better? No, I did not. I was talking about the Asian made bulb. Sure, it is easier to deal with those big brand bulbs, Philips, OSAM, etc., since their bulbs are well spec'ed and strict quality control makes their parameters well within their datasheet. The Asian made bulbs are not like that. But if a ballast can only work with the good quality bulbs, it's not an advantage in my eyes. Besides, to deal with short circuit condition is not a feature but a requirement of the HID ballast.

(I hope the "BS" you mentioned above means "Ballast Shutdown"...not something else...Let's keep the forum in a good manner.)


----------



## XeRay (Apr 8, 2009)

Lamphead said:


> No auto HID ballast can do that? Hella, AL, old OSRAM 35W ballasts, just to name a few, can all do that...that's a basic requirement of the HID ballast.
> 
> Did I talk about the Asian made BALLAST and saying Asian made ballast is better? No, I did not. I was talking about the Asian made bulb. Sure, it is easier to deal with those big brand bulbs, Philips, OSAM, etc., since their bulbs are well spec'ed and strict quality control makes their parameters well within their datasheet. The Asian made bulbs are not like that. But if a ballast can only work with the good quality bulbs, it's not an advantage in my eyes. Besides, to deal with shirt circuit condition is not a feature but a requirement of the HID ballast.
> (I hope the "BS" you mentioned above means "Ballast Shutdown"...not something else...Let's keep the forum in a good manner.)


 
If those ballasts (you list) have such great power control, how come when you shake the bulb they flicker? Shaking the bulb causes the impedance to rapidly fluctuate because the arc bow is being affected by strong G forces. They flicker because the ballast cannot respond so quickly to the sudden short term impedance changes within the bulb during steady state.

Say what you want, We will never design around bulbs with poor quality control or poor specs.

It is a basic design requirement to cover short circuit, open circuit etc during the start up phase, not during steady state. A bulb that suddenly has a wild swing in impedance close to a short value during steady state operation due to poor fill chemistry, poor electrode quality (Tungsten), it should be Thoriated Tungsten and possibly over sized electrodes as well is not acceptable.

I rest my case.

Note: "BS" in the case you referenced means "Ballast Superiority".:thinking:


----------



## Benson (Apr 8, 2009)

XeRay said:


> It is a basic design requirement to cover short circuit, open circuit etc during the start up phase, not during steady state. A bulb that suddenly has a wild swing in impedance close to a short value during steady state operation due to poor fill chemistry, poor electrode quality (Tungsten), it should be Thoriated Tungsten and possibly over sized electrodes as well is not acceptable.


I can see how that would not be worth trying to keep the light operational, but I'd think the ballast could still be designed to avoid damage to the _ballast_ when a bulb fails that way...


----------



## XeRay (Apr 8, 2009)

Benson said:


> I can see how that would not be worth trying to keep the light operational, but I'd think the ballast could still be designed to avoid damage to the _ballast_ when a bulb fails that way...


 
Hard to justify for something so rare, when ONLY Asian made bulbs have been shown to cause this failure mode. We have had 25,000+ European made HID bulbs pass through our operation without a single bulb caused failure like this evidenced.

High quality NAME BRAND HID bulbs (D2S) can be had on ebay for about $50 each and less. 

When the Asian bulbs are being sold for similar retail prices and even frequently much higher for 8000K+ color temps and other oddities, why buy Asian bulbs ??? There is no good financial reason.


----------



## Lamphead (Apr 8, 2009)

True, the power regulation is a low bandwidth regulation compared to the close loop control of the power train, however, the shaking of the lamp should only make it flicker. In case of distinguishing (which is possible especially with the aging bulb that has a relatively thin arc), the ballast will shut down gracefully.

The over-current condition MUST be dealt with no matter in start-up or steady stage. Especially in steady stage, it is important for safty and reliability reason. Also, the capability that the ballast can deal with out-of-spec bulbs is not only for using Asian made bulbs, but it improves its ability to work wth good bulbs when they age. I saw many times name brand bulbs' working voltage goes above 120V when they age, which is well beyond their nominal datasheet value.

Please be reminded that I am not here to promote Asian made ballast or bulb....


----------



## XeRay (Apr 8, 2009)

Lamphead said:


> I saw many times name brand bulbs' working voltage goes above 120V when they age, which is well beyond their nominal datasheet value.


 
This is an unsafe operation level at this Voltage for an old worn out bulb. This is beyond "end of life" (EOL) as spec'd by Philips, Osram, GE. A quality ballast will shut the bulb down at that voltage and not continue to operate "normally" until the bulb is replaced. This type of operation is a bulb explosion hazard and should not be allowed.

Note: The Korean Bulb (70 watt) that caused our ballast failures had only a few hours of use (at most) on it. This should be considered a new bulb. We were running it at 75 watts which the manufacturer had indicated to be fine, "well within its capabilities."


----------



## Lamphead (Apr 8, 2009)

120V is EOL voltage? How often do you recommend your customers change their bulbs? ;-)


----------



## XeRay (Apr 8, 2009)

Lamphead said:


> 120V is EOL voltage? How often do you recommend your customers change their bulbs? ;-)


 
That depends on many factors, which bulb, which wattage (35, 50, 75), optimal output (lumens), maximum life, AC Ballast output vs DC ballast output, etc.

All of these issues factor into our recommendations. It is all about application, products being used and customer priorities and/or needs.


----------



## Lamphead (Apr 8, 2009)

Wow, a good marketing or sales answer...;-) Let's cut the CYA type of thing, will ya.... 

Nice chatting with you guys...


----------



## XeRay (Apr 8, 2009)

Lamphead said:


> Wow, a good marketing or sales answer...;-) Let's cut the CYA type of thing, will ya....
> 
> Nice chatting with you guys...


 


That was more of an engineers answer than a sales answer. 

If you nailed down your question (more specific & not so vague), maybe I could give you a more specific answer.

Like 35 watt AC output ballast with std D2S (non Asian) 35 watt rated bulb.

It has been "fun" (PITA).

I don't know why I bother on some of these comments ? (rhetorical question).
I suspect this tangent above starting with post #12 is an example of "baiting" ???


----------



## Lamphead (Apr 8, 2009)

Did you mention you use ONLY brand name bulbs? If so, why is the question vague to you? Which part of the above comment is rhetorical? And, I am baiting for what? I am not in alliance with any of the companies here.

I respect everyone on this forum. People here spend a lot of time and money on the HID lights. We all deserve the real numbers and facts of how those HIDs work. I only wanted to state the facts and I know sometimes the fact hurts.

I have been joining this forum for long time. From this forum, for the stuff I don't know, I shut up, read and learn. Meanwhile, I hate to see the false information flowing around. If I did hurt someone, I am sorry, nothing personal.


----------



## NeonJohn (Apr 9, 2009)

Benson said:


> I can see how that would not be worth trying to keep the light operational, but I'd think the ballast could still be designed to avoid damage to the _ballast_ when a bulb fails that way...



[full time lurker, part time poster ]

Speaking as someone who designs ballasts professionally, let me address a few points.

First off, yes, a ballast can be designed to withstand a short. My latest design which is headed for high volume production can. That was part of the specification because in the application there is a decent chance of the thing being shorted while relamping. I monitor the current on every cycle of the AC lamp drive and chop drive to the FET half bridge if over-current is detected. This is at a cost of around 15 components and maybe 50 cents in additional cost and a not insignificant increment of board space. In the automotive world and presumably in the handheld world, 50 cents is a HUGE cost increment.

If I were designing an automotive or portable ballast, unless my client required it, I would NOT protect from steady state low impedance. It simply costs too much to protect for a one in a million incident. Or zero in a million incident with reputable lamps. Ultimately you draw a cost-probability line and say that anything less likely than so may incidents per X million hours of operation simply requires replacement of the ballast. This isn't military and it isn't life safety. 

As to the assertion that a constant current source should regulate down to zero load impedance, in the real world that is silly. Yes, I know that a theoretical constant current source can do that but this is the real world and cost and volume (cubic inches, not production volume) matter. And FETs have finite single cycle current withstand specifications that can't be exceeded even once.

I might also add that XeRay was TESTING an unknown lamp against a ballast that (presumably) was already in production. That is, a ballast that was not designed to withstand an event (low impedance) that heretofore had never been seen. This was a TEST, a process designed to ferret out the unknown. Failures are expected during TESTING.

In the aftermath of the test, XeRay had this decision to make. On one hand he has a half dozen brands of lamps that all behave similarly and predictably and a ballast design that successfully runs them. On the other hand he has a ChiCom lamp made by a reputationally unknown company that lamp smokes his ballast. Does he redesign his ballast to work with this lamp, a device whose properties might change at any moment without warning, or does he chunk the lamp and continue on with what works.

The decision is pretty obvious to me.

John
[email protected]


----------



## Benson (Apr 9, 2009)

NeonJohn said:


> First off, yes, a ballast can be designed to withstand a short. My latest design which is headed for high volume production can. That was part of the specification because in the application there is a decent chance of the thing being shorted while relamping. I monitor the current on every cycle of the AC lamp drive and chop drive to the FET half bridge if over-current is detected. This is at a cost of around 15 components and maybe 50 cents in additional cost and a not insignificant increment of board space. In the automotive world and presumably in the handheld world, 50 cents is a HUGE cost increment.


Thanks for the concrete info -- specifics like this are _very_ helpful for perspective in such a discussion.

I don't _think_ the 50 cents would be a big deal here for handheld applications (I'd gladly pay $10-20 extra for a light with such a ballast, or that much additional for a "premium" ballast to use in one of my mods) -- but board space for 15 add'l components _definitely_ is, and I might well _not_ make that trade-off, even if there was no price difference.


----------



## AFS (Apr 10, 2009)

NeonJohn said:


> This is at a cost of around 15 components and maybe 50 cents in additional cost and a not insignificant increment of board space.


 
I think you are talking about "old-fassioned" design. The ballast with microcontroller does not cost that much in real estate to implement over-current / over- or under- voltage protections.



NeonJohn said:


> If I were designing an automotive or portable ballast, unless my client required it, I would NOT protect from steady state low impedance.


 
Sorry, but it's not true. Automotive ballast requires short circuit protection at all time.



NeonJohn said:


> As to the assertion that a constant current source should regulate down to zero load impedance, in the real world that is silly.


 
Well, for a truely current clamped ballast, the short circuit is not a damaging condition at all. The shorted output does not make it harder to regulate; the current is simply fixed. The low impedence does not consume more power, actually it takes less power because of the low impedence. If the short circuit is REALLY zero imepedence, then the power consumption is very close to zero on the shorted output. A robust ballast should not fail in this condition, unless it is not designed to clamp the current or just bad quality.


----------



## XeRay (Apr 10, 2009)

I think Lamphead and AFS (1st post) are one and the same poster. Same or similar opinions, same minor English grammar errors.

This is against CPF rules.


----------



## Patriot (Apr 10, 2009)

That's pretty funny that AFS shows up and makes his first post in such a highly debated and complex subject. I guess it's possible that it's a different person but I think that would be highly unlikely. 



AFS says that an automotive ballast requires short protection all the time. I'm not sure if that's true or not but if it is true wouldn't at least the same be required in aircraft? I would suspect that the safety requirements are higher for the later application, in which case shouldn't XeVision's ballasts have that covered. 

Lamphead/AFS, don't you kind of have to give the benifit of the doubt to Xeray since his systems are used and proven in advanced applications? To suggest their ballasts are of substandard quality or not up the the task so to speak doesn't seem logical to me. If only one bulb ever used with Xeray's ballasts have caused issues then doesn't that speak for itself to some extext? It just seems strange to me that a knowledgeable member points out the fact that one bulb type from South Korea isn't up to Xevision's quality standards and you say in so many words 'no way' as if something like this wasn't even possible. So, isn't it possible?


----------



## AFS (Apr 10, 2009)

Guys,

Sorry for the confusion. I did not want to hide, but I was and am using a public computer on site...did not want to leave my real login info. Will be back to my own place tonight. (Damn, AFS revealed my current project though :-(... )

Talk to you guys later...got go back to the meeting...


----------



## DM51 (Apr 10, 2009)

AFS... re-registering in this manner, with the intent to deceive, is for obvious reasons against the rules. Your account is terminated.

Lamphead... your position here will now be a matter for consideration by CPF staff.


----------



## Lamphead (Apr 10, 2009)

Just got off the meeting and saw this posting from admin.

I would like to say the purpose of re-registering in this matter was NOT for deceiving. I am on site today with customer and just did not want to access my own account on a computer that everyone can access it. The browser on that computer is modified without any menu items for clearing the cookies for login info. And on this forum, there is no Guest account allowed. Other than waiting till night after I come back to my place, what other option do I have? Please advise.


----------



## Lamphead (Apr 11, 2009)

Patriot said:


> AFS says that an automotive ballast requires short protection all the time. I'm not sure if that's true or not but if it is true wouldn't at least the same be required in aircraft? I would suspect that the safety requirements are higher for the later application, in which case shouldn't XeVision's ballasts have that covered.



Again, the ballast essentially is a current source. It limits its current in two ways, by power / current regulation and by current clamping. Limiting current is not an additional safty feature, it is what it does. The current clampping will cap the current to bulb when there is a fast transient in output impedence, for which the current / power regulation is not quick enough to react.



Patriot said:


> Lamphead/AFS, don't you kind of have to give the benifit of the doubt to Xeray since his systems are used and proven in advanced applications? To suggest their ballasts are of substandard quality or not up the the task so to speak doesn't seem logical to me. If only one bulb ever used with Xeray's ballasts have caused issues then doesn't that speak for itself to some extext? It just seems strange to me that a knowledgeable member points out the fact that one bulb type from South Korea isn't up to Xevision's quality standards and you say in so many words 'no way' as if something like this wasn't even possible. So, isn't it possible?



I think my answer has already been stated before. Don't want to repeat here why the bulb short should not be a cause of the ballast failure...

The intent of all the postings is not to harm anyone and I am not interested in arguing if a particular ballast is substandard or not. Just felt responsible to point out the thing that I believe wrong and provide what I know.


----------



## Patriot (Apr 25, 2009)

BVH, have you heard anything else about this?


----------



## LuxLuthor (Apr 25, 2009)

An interesting discussion. I accept the AFS explanation (? Adaptive Frontlighting Systems ?).

NeonJohn's reinforcement of XeRay's claim that steady state low impedance bulb damaging the ballast is not the norm or practical in designing gives a lot of credibility to their point. 

I don't know enough on an engineering basis to argue one way or another, but it is very common knowledge that Asian HID/Ballast/Bulbs (with a few exceptions--Polarion) have substandard quality reputations. I think that is at the heart of what XeRay was saying in post #2.


----------



## BVH (Apr 25, 2009)

Nope. I've not heard anything further on this.


----------



## XeRay (Apr 25, 2009)

BVH said:


> Nope. I've not heard anything further on this.


 
Small tangent here. "Lips" over on the "other" Forum. Is making critical comments about XeRay searchlight marketing honesty and criticisms.

We have often indicated the XeRay housing was made in Taiwan. That housing was always made in Taiwan (never Japan) until mid-late 2008, when they moved production to mainland China from Taiwan. We have no housings made in China (our housing stock is older Taiwan made) and likely never will come from China. We will be coming out in 2009 (middle to late) with the XeRay II which will not involve that housing maker at all. It will be an all or mostly aluminum housing.

It is the China made/engineered HID ballasts and bulbs which I have often called "junk." The ballasts and bulbs in the XeRay searchlights we have sold were never made in PRC (China) and will never be made there.

We *have* also let that maker sell some of our products including our XeSparQ igniter/Socket combo. For which we (XeVision), own a patent in the USA and Taiwan.

Segawa (XeRay housing maker) was NEVER a Japanese subsidiary, that's a marketing farce. As for criticizing Razors, they were using Chinese Ballasts and bulbs and they claimed the bulbs were Philips being made in a Singapore Philips HID bulb factory or something like that. I challenged that claim because Philips has always made all of these type HID bulbs in Germany NO exceptions. 

Lips, its very interesting how you can be so "2 faced", trying to "shmooze" me when you want help or needed something but confrontational and divisive when you don't. I rest my case for those who read both forums.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Apr 26, 2009)

Dan, I hear ya.

Hey, do you have any words of wisdom on my posts in this thread, in terms of the difficulty obtaining and reliable ways of testing output of various lights that I was talking to Patriot about in this other thread here?

That summary page you have at Xevision's site represents a lot of work to try and distill very complex subjects down to even that much. 

I still believe that the 64 page Alex Ryer pdf manual has been the best overall resource, but requires reading & coming back to reread a number of times before it all starts to sink in. I printed it out.


----------



## Lamphead (Apr 26, 2009)

XeRay, a great write-up of the summery page. Just a kind reminder. Please inlcude a credit to Don Klipstein on the "Electrical Requirements" section. I respect Don's knowledge and his generosity to share. Thanks.


----------



## XeRay (Apr 26, 2009)

Lamphead said:


> XeRay, a great write-up of the summery page. Just a kind reminder. Please inlcude a credit to Don Klipstein on the "Electrical Requirements" section. I respect Don's knowledge and his generosity to share. Thanks.


 
If you looked closer at the top of the "Hangar Tech talk" page, we do give the proper credits for his contributions. In fact it was 6 or 7 years ago, that we asked Don's permission. We even link to his pages.


----------



## Lamphead (Apr 26, 2009)

Thanks. I did not notice that line...


----------



## Patriot (Apr 29, 2009)

> *AFS/Lamphead*
> (Damn, AFS revealed my current project though :-(... )


 You make that statement as if you didn't intentionally select AFS as your user name to share with us and found out later that your fingers typed it unbeknown to your conscienceness.:thinking: The fact that you're working on an AFS project hardly seems like a highly secretive topic to me. The German auto manufacturer who I was with for 18 years had perfected the system over many years. Several other auto manufacturers have since followed suit and it's not new technology. I guess this thread and more specifically your posts seem odd to me because they're of the technical nature but in disagreement with at least two other very technically knowledgeable members. It also seems to me that you're last two posts follow the trend that you're intentionally trying to be both revealing and at the same time shadowy with your involvement in the HID industry as if you're working on alien craft at Groom Lake. From my perspective you could be an angry ex-Xevision employee or perceived competitor who's using Chinese or Korean bulbs and doesn't like them talked about as inferior to industry standard bulbs. Since you're not forthcoming I can only guess. In any case this type of tip toe-ing is not conducive to instilling trust with your readers, in which case what's the point of posting if you don't intend to convince us of something? I think you'd be taken more seriously if you told us what your background and area of expertise is. Are you a hobbiest, an inventor, a manufacture?


In an attempt to clear up this confusion regarding the "bulb shorting the ballast" issue, even if only for my own sanity, here is what I picked out and chalk up as the key posts. 



> *Xeray*
> This S. Korean HID bulb is not close to the capability, dependability, output (lumens) or lumens maintenance (life), of either of the Philips DL-50 versions. In fact one of the new "70 watt" bulbs went bad in our FAA testing and "took out" one of our ballasts after only a few hours of use.
> We have NEVER had ANY bulb "kill" ANY ballast prior to this. "Caveat", we do not test a lot of Asian made HID bulbs, in fact very rarely do we bother, most are junk compared to Philips, Osram, GE.





> *Lamphead
> *The HID ballast can not take the short circuit, gets damaged and it's the bulb issue? I don't think so. This is the ballast issue. HID ballast basically is a current source. In other words, it limits the current to the bulb. If it can not cope with the short circuit condition, it's the ballast design or quality issue. Excuse me, but just getting upset seeing people always casting blames on others as excuse of their own product issue. A popular target is Chinese product. Ironically, it seems that every HID ballast maker has some sort of design / production relationship with Asian companies.





> *NeonJohn
> *Speaking as someone who designs ballasts professionally, let me address a few points.
> 
> First off, yes, a ballast can be designed to withstand a short. My latest design which is headed for high volume production can. That was part of the specification because in the application there is a decent chance of the thing being shorted while relamping. I monitor the current on every cycle of the AC lamp drive and chop drive to the FET half bridge if over-current is detected. This is at a cost of around 15 components and maybe 50 cents in additional cost and a not insignificant increment of board space. In the automotive world and presumably in the handheld world, 50 cents is a HUGE cost increment.
> ...


Xeray basically claims that the Korean bulbs came up "short" regarding performance to Philips or Osram bulbs during testing with their own ballasts. He also states that this bulb type ruined two of them, which has never happened before. This seems perfectly plausible and no part of that statement sounds disingenuous to me. 

Lamphead/AFS claims that it's a ballast issue and not the bulb. This even though Xeray's products routinely undergo the scrutiny of the FAA due to their application and despite this he's still in business. An example which brings the discussion closer to home with CPFers is that many of us own Xeray searchlights and so far I've never heard anything bad about them. Lamphead then gets "upset" by his own admission that Xeray had "cast blame" even though a manufacturer by name wasn't even mentioned. Xeray only stated, "S. Korean HID bulb. Note that Lamphead's first post begins with a specific attack of Xeray's products. 

NeonJohn basically states that yes it is possible for a bulb to damage a ballast but in the area of automotive or portable ballasts why implement that type of protection when the chance of failure is so small? Xeray's ballasts were designed around the best quality Philips and Osram bulbs (which also happen to be commonplace brands in the automotive industry) and not around Korean bulbs. Does this mean that Xevision products are lacking in some way? I sure don't think so and it doesn't seem like NeonJohn thinks so either.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Apr 29, 2009)

There's alien craft at Groom Lake? :tinfoil:


----------



## XeRay (Apr 29, 2009)

Is this merely a coincidence ??? Lamphead/AFS (here) and Lips (other Forum) are making some VERY similar comments around the same time frame. Maybe this is a "stretch" but....?????

Both made this same point with likely similar goals: 

Lamphead/AFS: "A popular target is Chinese product. Ironically, it seems that every HID ballast maker has some sort of design / production relationship with Asian companies." 

Lamphead/AFS also claims to be an HID designer and has more than a casual interest in HID. He seems to have a personal investment, maybe also a business one. His English is quite good but he makes occasional grammar errors more typical of Asians.

Lips (other forum): "It's amazing to me how *Searchlight* "*distributors*" in the *USA* can poo poo *Asian* equipment when they use or sell *Asian* equipment. Most of the lights or the components are in one way or another associated with or have roots in Asia (OEM included)... Shouldn't be surprising or bad to know that Taiwan and South Korean companies use China labor and tech to produce many of their products, not to mention USA companies."

Lips starts his comments before the above quote (other forum) by claiming our XeRay lights are made in China, our XeRay housings were never made in China, We bought our housing stocks before they moved the mfg ops. to China from Taiwan in mid 2008. We never used a Chinese built (stock) ballast or bulb in our XeRay's. My criticisms have been mostly about bulbs and ballasts not housings. Some of our PCB manufacturing is also done in Taiwan. Most PCB's (Printed Circuit Boards) in the world are made in Asia. Likely 70%+ worldwide of high production (high volume) PCB manufacturing.

I suspect Lips wants to jump into selling (making money) marketing the recently reborn Razor lights (claimed to be Australian but actually Chinese or Asian) from a few years ago. Also some other remote control HID products he is importing and ballasts bulbs etc.

I suspect he is concerned that the stigma on CPF for Asian bulbs and Chinese designed and built ballasts will hurt or is currently hurting his plans.

Again these are just suspicions about motives and a possible connection between these 2 individuals. I have no hard evidence. Lips feels our collective XeVision head is too big (ego) and is looking for things to criticize us for. Lamphead/AFS is doing the same regarding my Asian bulb and ballast design comments.


----------



## Lips (Apr 30, 2009)

XeRay said:


> Again these are just suspicions about motives and a possible connection between these 2 individuals. I have no hard evidence. Lips feels our collective XeVision head is too big (ego) and is looking for things to criticize us for. Lamphead/AFS is doing the same regarding my Asian bulb and ballast design comments.








_XERAY_ --- You are a *LEGEND*


IN YOUR OWN mind!​





.


----------



## Patriot (Apr 30, 2009)

> *LuxLuthor
> *There's alien craft at Groom Lake? :tinfoil:


You just wanted to use that little tinfoil hat dude..... Now you've been data mined by the NSA for just typing it. :nana:









> XeRay said:
> 
> 
> > My criticisms have been mostly about bulbs and ballasts not housings. Some of our PCB manufacturing is also done in Taiwan. quote]
> ...


----------



## Lamphead (Apr 30, 2009)

Wow, Lamphead and Lips are now one person again. XeRay, you really enjoyed finding out that AFS and Lamphead were the same person (which I did not deny and told everyone why that was in my posting asap) and expanding your imagination...

Lips, where are your postings regarding the XeVision products? I did not know your view untill XeRay cut&pasted your posting here. I got read them now...I just realized this forum is becoming more and more like some company sponsered one, which does not accept any different opinions or even truth...I think I am leaving soon, sadly...

As for AFS says about revealing my current project...guys, it was supposed to be a joke....


----------



## DM51 (Apr 30, 2009)

Lamphead said:


> I think I am leaving soon


That's the only thing you've been right about so far, and you are spot on with it. 

Goodbye.


----------



## XeRay (Apr 30, 2009)

XeRay said:


> Again these are just suspicions about motives and *a possible connection between these 2 individuals.* I have no hard evidence.


 


Lamphead said:


> Wow, Lamphead and Lips are now one person again.


 
I never suggested Lamphead and Lips to be 1 person as I said above. I believe they are 2 individuals, possibly? with a connection (business?). I also said this is a "stretch" but still a logical possibility, considering the details. 

This all seems to be a bit much for a coincidence (timing, similarities, nothing else going on to provoke it, etc.) but......??

Likely, we will never know but it did "beg the question".


----------



## Lips (Apr 30, 2009)

.





*Na*, I can answer that one straight up for you...



*Don't* know him, *never* heard of him, *Aint never* had any contact with him or the *other guy* that responded. 


He may have heard of me...


As I'm a *LEGEND* in my on *MIND* ----









.


----------



## XeRay (Apr 30, 2009)

Lips said:


> As I'm a LEGEND in my *own* MIND


 
"Brilliant" minds think alike, that could explain my error about the "connection" between both of you.

BTW, I fixed the spelling error in your quote above. (own not on). 
Can't have errors like that in my posts, even if it is a quote.

I think we can consider this:touche:concluded. 
Touche' ??


----------



## Lips (Apr 30, 2009)

XeRay said:


> "Brilliant" minds think alike, that could explain my error about the "connection" between both of you.
> 
> BTW, I fixed the spelling error in your quote above. (own not on).
> Can't have errors like that in my posts, even if it is a quote.
> ...





Touchet (!)


but I still plead for points (AF) given the Louisiana public education system 



.


----------



## MattK (Apr 30, 2009)

XeRay said:


> One downside they (shown on their website) use a South Korean made "70 watt" bulb for 50 and 70 watt use. We have tested this exact bulb (the manufacturer wants us to buy from them (S.Korea)). This S. Korean HID bulb is not close to the capability, dependability, output (lumens) or lumens maintenance (life), of either of the Philips DL-50 versions. In fact one of the new "70 watt" bulbs went bad in our FAA testing and "took out" one of our ballasts after only a few hours of use.
> 
> We have NEVER had ANY bulb "kill" ANY ballast prior to this. "Caveat", we do not test a lot of Asian made HID bulbs, in fact very rarely do we bother, most are junk compared to Philips, Osram, GE.
> 
> To be SURE it was the bulb that killed the ballast we tried a second ballast and the SAME bulb AGAIN damaged the 2nd ballast as well.



According to AE light, with whom I inquired directly rather than making assumptions, this is a spec-designed bulb with 18 months of development work and not an 'off the shelf' unit. 
Starting with that fact, I believe, largely invalidates any further point you were seeking to make about the bulb they intend to use in this product.

Additionally it's a logical fallacy to claim that a bulb killed one ballast and then an identical ballast was killed by the same bulb; perhaps the fault is the ballast and not the bulb? Perhaps your ballast is simply not robust enough?

There are major differences between 'cheap automotive ballasts' and the Auerswald ballasts AE uses and for which they have FAA certification; perhaps you have an inferior ballast or bulb/ballast combo?

Also, isn't it rather hypocritical to make comments about Lips motivations in this thread when you've clearly failed to state that YOU have commercial motivations to cr*p on some new, exciting stuff AE Light is working on? 
You stated in the thread that you're working on the FAA approval that AE has already earned so clearly you have a competetive interest here that you've basically cloaked in misplaced assumptions and factless statements about another mfrs products.

I was staying out of this thread before but the hypocrisy sucked me in. Most of the factories and dealers here do each other the courtesy of discussing the merits of their own products not attacking, baselessly, the products of others. We're an AE Light dealer so I guess you could say we have 'an interest' here but I assure you that this post is about courtesy and honesty and not commerce.


----------



## windstrings (Apr 30, 2009)




----------



## Patriot (Apr 30, 2009)

MattK said:


> According to AE light, with whom I inquired directly rather than making assumptions, this is a spec-designed bulb with 18 months of development work and not an 'off the shelf' unit.
> Starting with that fact, I believe, largely invalidates any further point you were seeking to make about the bulb they intend to use in this product.
> 
> 
> There are major differences between 'cheap automotive ballasts' and the Auerswald ballasts AE uses and for which they have FAA certification





Finally some real info! I really wish you had chimed in earlier Matt since the thread is now a month old but maybe you were limited because of AE disclosure rules. Whatever the case it's good to hear something relating to the rumors from a reliable source. Any chance this could be a product released this year or are we likely looking at 2010? I'm very supportive of AE products and eager for knowledge about their up and coming models. 


Thanks,


----------



## XeRay (Apr 30, 2009)

MattK said:


> According to AE light, with whom I inquired directly rather than making assumptions, this is a spec-designed bulb; not an 'off the shelf' unit. Starting with that fact, I believe, largely invalidates any further point you were seeking to make about this bulb.
> 
> Additionally it's a logical fallacy to claim that a bulb killed one ballast and then an identical ballast was killed by the same bulb; perhaps the fault is the ballast and not the bulb? Perhaps your ballast is simply not robust enough?
> 
> ...


 
Matt, this "situation" you address is not as simple as you might think or it appears to you from conversations you have obviously have had with Mark (AE). I have no reason to believe your motives are anything but pure. That being said below, I have addressed below your comments point by point:

We have access to that EXACT S. Korean Bulb (I never said it was off the shelf) that AE is using for their 70 watt systems. I have copies of the AE spec sheet on the bulb, it is the same one. This bulb was (from the start) designed specifically for one of my long time (ballast) customers and AE is "enjoying the benefit" of that non exclusive development. Our customer has been involved in its (this bulbs) development for about 1.5 years. I have also had direct meetings with this bulb manufacturer and helped them make some improvements, last fall. Electrode size (thickness) arc chamber size and arc chamber quartz (glass) thickness. The electrodes are now too thick, against our recommendations. The electrodes were originally too thin. My customer was also involved in the development of an even earlier 50 watt bulb version from the same manufacturer, about 3 to 3.5 years ago. 

As for the ballast, my customer was testing many of this bulb, maybe 20 units. This 1 bulb killed 2 ballasts. None of the other bulbs in the batch had the same or negative affect. My customer in fact decided to abandon this bulb for a PROVEN Philips alternative that was only marginally more expensive.

We have had DO160E testing on this specific project, completed since mid 2008, so much for us being the "Jonny come lately" in the most stringent FAA testing requirements. Our systems Have been TC'd on 3 major aircraft makers, the first one since about 5 years ago. We have also passed NASA rigorous environmental testing for launch and space vehicles (partial or complete vacuum environments).

FAA testing is usually an ongoing process as new products are brought on line. We are always involved in ongoing FAA stds. testing.

Everyone knows I have commercial motives, I have never hidden that fact from the very beginning.

*Maybe I should LEARN to keep my "inside info" to myself. It seems when I don't I just bring on the "grief".*
*A "Lightning Rod" of Late, or so it seems.* :duck:

BTW, this bulb maker has nothing to do with Polarion. There are only 2 notable HID bulb makers in S. Korea, I have met with both of them. Even Polarion uses Osram (Sylvania), no "home grown" HID bulbs for them either, Osram is a more expensive option too.

Please read the editing comments below.


----------



## MattK (Apr 30, 2009)

Patriot said:


> Finally some real info! I really wish you had chimed in earlier Matt since the thread is now a month old but maybe you were limited because of AE disclosure rules. Whatever the case it's good to hear something relating to the rumors from a reliable source. Any chance this could be a product released this year or are we likely looking at 2010? I'm very supportive of AE products and eager for knowledge about their up and coming models.
> 
> 
> Thanks,



You hit the nail on the head re: why I've not chimed in sooner. 

This is a real product. I've got multiple pics of it. The first version is really military market specific but there will be a less costly civilian model; hopefully before the end of the year. I don't want to go too far or turn this into a commercial post so we'll stop there for now.



XeRay said:


> Matt, this "situation" you address is not as simple as you might think or it appears to you from conversations you have obviously have had with Mark (AE). I have no reason to believe your motives are anything but pure. That being said below, I have addressed below your comments point by point:
> 
> We have access to that EXACT S. Korean Bulb (I never said it was off the shelf) that AE is using for their 70 watt systems. I have copies of the AE spec sheet on the bulb, it is the same one. This bulb was (from the start) designed specifically for one of my long time customers and AE is "enjoying the benefit" of that non exclusive development. Our customer has been involved in its (this bulbs) development for about 1.5 years. I have also had direct meetings with this bulb manufacturer and helped them make some improvements, last fall. Electrode size (thickness) arc chamber size and arc chamber quartz (glass) thickness. The electrodes are now too thick, against our recommendations. The electrodes were originally too thin. My customer was also involved in the development of an even earlier 50 watt bulb version from the same manufacturer, about 3 to 3.5 years ago.
> 
> ...




Dan - I'm not looking to get into a pissing match between you and AE light; I'm not here as a go-between. I saw what I felt was a mean-spirited attack with debateable facts and questionable logic and I was, to be blunt, a bit turned off by the tone/tenor that this thread had taken. 

These threads should be about discussing the merits, possiblities, 'wish-lists,' etc, and need not be debased by egocentric continuations of arguments from other forums.

I'll leave it at this; in attacking or belittling another Mfrs products in this manner I think you do yourself more harm than good. That's my .02.

Peace.


----------



## XeRay (May 1, 2009)

MattK said:


> I'll leave it at this; in attacking or belittling another Mfrs products in this manner I think you do yourself more harm than good. That's my .02.
> 
> Peace.


 
Matt,

I have never (to my knowledge) criticized AE light products and in this 1 case, only critical of a possible bulb for this new project. They seemed to have highlighted this "new" bulb on the AE website. 
I don't know if this is even the specific bulb planned for this new AE project. In the beginning (early) in this thread it was only conjecture that this bulb might be planned for the new light you have indicated is being developed.

Please reread my first post in this thread.

Peace as well.

Dan


----------



## Patriot (May 1, 2009)

> *Xeray
> *As for the ballast, my customer was testing many of this bulb, maybe 20 units. This 1 bulb killed 2 ballasts. None of the other bulbs in the batch had the same or negative affect. My customer in fact decided to abandon this bulb for a PROVEN Philips alternative that was only marginally more expensive.


It's good to know that it was just one bulb, but still that's a 1:20 failure ratio in your customer's ballasts. It may have been fair to mention that 19 of them were good but it's water under the bridge now.



> *Xeray
> *This S. Korean HID bulb is not close to the capability, dependability, output (lumens) or lumens maintenance (life), of either of the Philips DL-50 versions.


The fact that one particular bulb in the batch caused some issues seems like just one particular problem. If it also falls behind in output, and bulb life I'd have to say that from a customer stand point that I'd just as soon take the proven DL-50 even if it costs more. I assume we're talking about a fairly high dollar light regarding this weapon light. If the particular S. Korean bulb being discussed had made it through testing with flying colors I don't have the feeling that Dan would have anything negative against it since it was obviously under consideration by them already and available at lower cost. If fact, it sounds to me like he wanted it to work but it just didn't play out in the end. 

As an objective reader, I never really took Dan's comments as being against AE light but as more of record of his own experience with a certain bulb that AE was considering using. Turns out Xevision was considering it at one time too which is important in knowing where Dan is coming from, so to speak. I was staying tuned because I was originally interested in the technical aspects of a bulb causing a ballast failure but it turned into "finger point" straight to the ballast when there was really no reason for it to migrate into that. Just taking into consideration the certification status of Xevision's ballasts would tell a reasonable person that the ballast isn't junk and that there may be an alternative explanation. Unfortunately that latitude wasn't extended and the thread turned into what it did. Btw, I don't own any Xevision products myself and I don't know Dan so yes, I've tried to be truely objective here.


Hopefully everything has been hashed out now and we can get down to some regular updates about what's happening in the world of AE's HID weaponlight. It would also be great to get a general price range for the full blown military piece even if the civilian version hasn't been finalized yet. 

Thanks 

Paul


----------



## MattK (May 1, 2009)

Are you sure you want me to re-read your posts? 

OK.

Your first post clearly said, " this exact bulb." Your last post before this one said, "we have access to that EXACT S. Korean Bulb (I never said it was off the shelf) that AE is using for their 70 watt systems," and continued that a customer, "decided to abandon this bulb." 

Now in your reply you're saying it is a "possible bulb," that you, "don't know if this is even the specific bulb planned for this new AE project," and, "it was only conjecture that this bulb might be planned for the new light."

Cliff notes:



XeRay said:


> ...We have tested this exact bulb (the manufacturer wants us to buy from them (S.Korea)). This S. Korean HID bulb is not close to the capability, dependability, output (lumens) or lumens maintenance (life), of either of the Philips DL-50 versions. In fact one of the new "70 watt" bulbs went bad in our FAA testing and "took out" one of our ballasts after only a few hours of use.
> 
> We have NEVER had ANY bulb "kill" ANY ballast prior to this. "Caveat", we do not test a lot of Asian made HID bulbs, in fact very rarely do we bother, most are junk compared to Philips, Osram, GE.
> 
> To be SURE it was the bulb that killed the ballast we tried a second ballast and the SAME bulb AGAIN damaged the 2nd ballast as well.





XeRay said:


> We have access to that EXACT S. Korean Bulb (I never said it was off the shelf) that AE is using for their 70 watt systems. I have copies of the AE spec sheet on the bulb, it is the same one. This bulb was (from the start) designed specifically for one of my long time (ballast) customers and AE is "enjoying the benefit" of that non exclusive development. Our customer has been involved in its (this bulbs) development for about 1.5 years. I have also had direct meetings with this bulb manufacturer and helped them make some improvements, last fall. ...
> 
> As for the ballast, my customer was testing many of this bulb, maybe 20 units. This 1 bulb killed 2 ballasts. None of the other bulbs in the batch had the same or negative affect. My customer in fact decided to abandon this bulb for a PROVEN Philips alternative that was only marginally more expensive...





XeRay said:


> Matt,
> 
> I have never (to my knowledge) criticized AE light products and in this 1 case, only critical of a possible bulb for this new project. They seemed to have highlighted this "new" bulb on the AE website.
> I don't know if this is even the specific bulb planned for this new AE project. In the beginning (early) in this thread it was only conjecture that this bulb might be planned for the new light you have indicated is being developed.
> ...


----------



## MattK (May 1, 2009)

Patriot said:


> As an objective reader, I never really took Dan's comments as being against AE light but as more of record of his own experience with a certain bulb that AE was considering using. Turns out Xevision was considering it at one time too which is important in knowing where Dan is coming from, so to speak.....
> 
> 
> Hopefully everything has been hashed out now and we can get down to some regular updates about what's happening in the world of AE's HID weaponlight. It would also be great to get a general price range for the full blown military piece even if the civilian version hasn't been finalized yet.
> ...



Hi Paul - 

I basically took issue with the tone and conjecture/assumption that is was the exact same bulb when that, I have been told directly, is not the case.

Regarding price, I don't have anything official so this is pure conjecture on my part but I think it is safe to assume we're talking about a couple of grand. The military specified battery alone is a super expensive Saft rechargeable that is like $600+ IIRC.

Shoot me a PM with your email please - wanted to email you something but I don't recall your last name so I couldn't look you up.


----------



## HIDholic (May 1, 2009)

matt, i own an ae ballast, 50w, can it be used with 70w burner?


----------



## windstrings (May 1, 2009)

MattK said:


> Regarding price, I don't have anything official so this is pure conjecture on my part but I think it is safe to assume we're talking about a couple of grand.



Sweet!.. put me on the list for ten!
Ill give them out as Christmas presents... who wants to be on my list?


----------



## MattK (May 1, 2009)

HIDholic said:


> matt, i own an ae ballast, 50w, can it be used with 70w burner?



I doubt it but would recommend checking directly with AE on any sort of custom project.

windstrings - Done.


----------



## HIDholic (May 1, 2009)

thanks, matt. hopefully it can. it costed me hefty on that one.

i'm kind of new to this forum, but i posted two pieces just now and only one showed up. don't know why. technical issue or got censor'ed?

*my postings just kept getting deleted by dm51 (administrator?)! i can't believe it!!! all i wanted to say in that deleted posting was to agree on matt's comment and feel sorry for lamphead; he was the whistle-blower but got banned.*
_*


MattK said:



...I'll leave it at this; in attacking or belittling another Mfrs products in this manner I think you do yourself more harm than good...

Click to expand...

 *_*this forum is like ruled by commies. i'm out of here, folks.*


----------



## DM51 (May 1, 2009)

HIDholic said:


> i posted two pieces just now and only one showed up.


Welcome to CPF, HIDholic.

One of your posts was deleted, as it contravened Rule 4.


----------



## XeRay (May 1, 2009)

BVH said:


> Wonder if there is anything to the rumor that AE Light is developing a weapon light for military use? It's supposed to be a military grade, 2-level, 50-70 Watt light producing 7,000 to 8,000 Lumens. Beyond that, rumor says they may produce a non-military version with the same output if interest is gauged high enough. Depending on price, that's something I might consider adding to my inventory.


 
Based on this statement above and the S. Korean "70 watt" bulb that was shown on the AE website as their "special" 70 watt bulb solution. It was only logical to believe this was the same bulb to be used for a 50/70 watt tactical light project. Unless they use a different base than D2S (P32d) (D2C Asian designation only) it could be a different base used but still the same burner (arc tube). D2C designation is a combination base socket compatible to install in place of both D2S and D2R for car headlight kits. "a One size fits all D2 (P32d) type base. The European made bulbs are only "keyed for one or the other not both. This is a cost cutting measure done by the Asians. *D2R and D2S have VERY significantly different bulb light output patterns, one is designed for automotive reflector headlights (D2R), the other (D2S) for the "newer" projector type headlights.*

There are only 3 current (likely) options for HID bulbs in this power range (50-80 watts). (1) Cheap Chinese (many brands) but most if not all are "junk" so far as I know. Most if not all, are not truly designed for this high wattage, (2) Philips and finally, (3) this currently discussed South Korean supplier. Again, there are only 2 "viable" HID bulb makers in South Korea. Only one of them is truly active in making this bulb technology rated above 50 watts.

I never stated but at most implied, the same bulb on the AE website was to be used in this new AE project. Indicating I said anything beyond that is a "stretch."


----------



## XeRay (May 1, 2009)

HIDholic said:


> matt, i own an ae ballast, 50w, can it be used with 70w burner?


 
I am not Matt, but... Any 50 watt ballast "likely" will or could operate a 70 watt bulb but it won't be brighter than using a 50 watt rated bulb.

The ballast controls the amount of power going to the bulb. 

Doing as you suggest will gain nothing but could cause a problem right away or "down the road."


----------



## Patriot (May 1, 2009)

MattK said:


> Hi Paul -
> 
> Regarding price, I don't have anything official so this is pure conjecture on my part but I think it is safe to assume we're talking about a couple of grand. The military specified battery alone is a super expensive Saft rechargeable that is like $600+ IIRC.
> 
> Shoot me a PM with your email please - wanted to email you something but I don't recall your last name so I couldn't look you up.




Ok Matt. "a couple of grand" is close enough for me. The stopper for me would be the Saft battery system. That's more specialized than I'd want to get into so I'll wait and see but the other version brings. 

Still, I'll send you my email in just a moment.


----------



## LuxLuthor (May 2, 2009)

windstrings said:


> Sweet!.. put me on the list for ten!
> Ill give them out as Christmas presents... who wants to be on my list?



:wave:

I'm still worried about aliens at Groom Lake, but I'm pretty sure NSA has been declawed, so I'm keeping my :tinfoil:

This has been an "interesting" thread. I could post almost every one of the Extra Complete List of Smilies applying here....but I won't. 

Oh, Lips, I'm working on them. Forgot to PM you after receipt of "the goods."


----------



## PhantomPhoton (May 3, 2009)

windstrings said:


> Sweet!.. put me on the list for ten!
> Ill give them out as Christmas presents... who wants to be on my list?



:santa:

Oooh, I do! 

(As long as I don't have to wear a dress and call you daddy; there's always strings atatched.)
:laughing:



Since the XeRay higher power setups have scarcely been available to average flashaholics, I'm quite interested in seeing what AE brings to the table. I've been looking for a 10K+ lumen solution lately but I may be able to "settle" for the AE light.


----------

