# Phlatlight SSM-80



## monkeyboy (May 20, 2011)

Interesting new LED from Luminius: the SSM-80

-Quad die 2mm^2 (=8mm^2)

-2700-4000K CRI 83

-It looks like the dice are wired in series with 2A max current.

-top bin is 1120-1200lm @ 1A which scales to 2016-2160lm @ 2A


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 20, 2011)

The interesting part is the Vf of 12-13V. Would make life nice and easy for fixed lighting / automotive applications.


----------



## monkeyboy (May 20, 2011)

mvyrmnd said:


> The interesting part is the Vf of 12-13V. Would make life nice and easy for fixed lighting / automotive applications.


 
That would make it a bit awkward as you'd need a buck/boost driver instead of just a buck or just a boost driver.


----------



## zzonbi (May 21, 2011)

looks like 4 xpg chips in the old luminus 90 package
so the chip is good for 2A... fine if it costs as 2 or 3 xpgs


----------



## Curt R (May 21, 2011)

This LED looks like it is primarily for the luminar market, which
is a new market area for Luminius. The higher voltage means
that the major electronic components can be smaller and less
costly. As far as flashlight applications, the output pattern should
be similar to the Seoul P7 and the Cree MC-E LEDs. I would 
wait for the new Cree XK-? next year. A single 2.6/2.8 mm,
3.0 volt 7 Amp chip. Output should be in the 1600-2200 Lumen
range. 

Curt


----------



## LilKevin715 (May 21, 2011)

Anyone care for a doughnut? 

Spacing between the dies appears closer compared to the MC-E and P7, so with a correctly designed reflector it shouln't be a issue in a flashlight application.


----------



## bstrickler (May 22, 2011)

Curt R said:


> I would
> wait for the new Cree XK-? next year. A single 1.9/2.0 mm,
> 3.0 volt 7 Amp chip. Output should be in the 1600-2200 Lumen
> range.
> ...



You're joking about that form factor, and drive level, right?


----------



## Curt R (May 22, 2011)

Joking about what? That is a simple extension of the difference
between the XP-G and the XM-L. The SST-50 is the same die size
but has less output per sq mm than the SST-90 at the same drive.
The Cree lab hit 200 Lumens per watt a year and a half ago and just 
announced 231. The SST-50 is older than the SST-90 and that one
is over four years lab tech old. Companies do not put the latest
technology into established LEDs, only new ones. 

I made the same remarks about the XM-L a year before it was 
announced, except that I thought it would be called the XN-I.
The XK-? performance guess is just simple logic.

Curt


----------



## srfreddy (May 22, 2011)

Curt R said:


> Joking about what? That is a simple extension of the difference
> between the XP-G and the XM-L. The SST-50 is the same die size
> but has less output per sq mm than the SST-90 at the same drive.
> The Cree lab hit 200 Lumens per watt a year and a half ago and just
> ...


 
But the XML does 130ish lumens a watt, and is 3 amps for its 3/4 mm^2 die size (can't remember), so how would an led in between the XML and XPG do 7 amps? And the SST-50 is 5mm^2, the SST-90 9mm^2. So at the same drive, the SST-50 has more output per Sqr. MM.


----------



## Curt R (May 22, 2011)

Last time I checked 2 x 2 = 4mm square, the XM-L is 2 x 2 = 4mm square.
That makes the new XK-? twice the size of the XM-L and 4 times the XP-G.
Also the XM-L can be driven at 3.5 Amps with out harm. Typically electronic 
components have a built in 25% head room over the Max ratings on their spec
sheet. 

The SST-50 has more output per square mm at the same drive level, but has less
total Lumen output at the same drive level. I was talking about power in vs.
Lumen output, not efficiency per surface area in regards to the Luminus products.
I should have made that more clear, my mistake.

That is also true of the XM-L vs. the XP-G vs. the XR-E. The larger the surface
area allows for more thermal transfer and a higher output as the drive current is
increased over that of the smaller die, even thou the surface brightness decreases.

As the XM-L eclipses the P7 and MC-E, the next Cree will do the same to the SST-50. 

Curt


----------



## Benson (May 22, 2011)

Curt R said:


> Last time I checked 2 x 2 = 4mm square, the XM-L is 1.4 x 1.4 = 1.96mm square.
> That makes the new XK-? twice the size of the XM-L and 4 times the XP-G.


You're claiming:
XK-? = (2mm)^2
XM-L = (1.4mm)^2
XP-G = (1mm)^2


But for the two of those that are real, you're off by sqrt (2):
XM-L = (2mm)^2
XP-G = (1.4mm)^2
XP-E = (1mm)^2
So your prediction of an XK-whatever should be a 2.8mm die, (8 mm^2), and then I think people will be much less skeptical.


----------



## bstrickler (May 23, 2011)

Oh! I thought you were talking about 2sq mm surface area. I was gonna say, that's gotta be one hell of an increase in efficiency.

~Brian


----------



## srfreddy (May 23, 2011)

bstrickler said:


> Oh! I thought you were talking about 2sq mm surface area. I was gonna say, that's gotta be one hell of an increase in efficiency.
> 
> ~Brian


 
Thats what I thought too.... I also read your comment about an XK-? led as being the extension of the difference between teh XPG and XML as being in between the two. My fault. And the XML is 4mm^2.


----------



## Curt R (May 23, 2011)

Benson: Thanks for proof reading, I am going to make the correct 
changes in my post.

Now if I can only find what I did with my Alzheimer meds.

Curt


----------

