# New WH bin EZ900 die R2's



## kengps (Jun 30, 2010)

Hey guys, been doing some testing with the smaller die XR-E R2 cool bin LED's. I'm getting 17-22% better lux with these over the WH bin EZ1000 LED's. I'm pushing them at 1.4 Amps and my Tiablo A9 Aspheric is getting 105,000 to 108,000 lux with them. I got a 22% increase in lux when running the reflector on my A9's. Cutter tells me all the cool bin R2's are on EZ900's now. Maybe only warm bins still use the EZ1000 die. SO....finally some good news on the surface brightness front for thrower lights. Of course it does make the hot-spot/Die image smaller.

UPDATE....got a new AEMC CA813 light-meter. My Tiablo A9 EZ900 1.4A aspheric is getting 121,000 lux, and 42,800 with the reflector head. My EZ900 Lumapower Turbo-Force head is getting 103,000 lux. All measurements done at 10 Meters.


----------



## znomit (Jun 30, 2010)

kengps said:


> I got a 22% increase in lux when running the reflector on my A9's.


Yup.
0.9mm die instead of 1mm
(1/0.9)^2 =1.23

Thats three bin jumps in throw.


----------



## kengps (Jun 30, 2010)

znomit said:


> Yup.
> 0.9mm die instead of 1mm
> (1/0.9)^2 =1.23
> 
> Thats three bin jumps in throw.


 
Wow...so I actually tested something accurately Didn't know the formula for that. Something more....the brightness across the die is much more consistant than EZ1000. On my Aspherics I see a 29% difference in Lux from the center of the die image to the hottest part near the wires. The EZ900 is only 12% difference. I just noticed my Masterpiece Pro 1 with 54,000 lux has EZ1000. If I swap it with EZ900 I should be at 65,000 lux!!


----------



## znomit (Jun 30, 2010)

Is it just XRE using the EZ900 or are they on the XPE too?


----------



## kengps (Jun 30, 2010)

I don't know anything about the XP-E's, sorry. Not sure if it would do anything for you on XP-E's. Same Lumens as EZ1000, just a smaller die which gives a smaller hotspot on the XR-E's. Aren't XP-E's a much wider beam angle? So not used for optimum throw?


----------



## red02 (Jul 1, 2010)

Kengps, any chance for those 5m lux comparisons? With a DBS?

EDIT: forgot to read the thread title...


----------



## kengps (Jul 1, 2010)

I can't give you a good, controlled comparison with the DBS reflector I have. My Tiablo A9's have the same identical driver, reflector, Aspheric lense. I can do an Apples-to-Apples comparison using those. I did put the EZ900 R2 of my new skyline II up to the DBS reflector and it was much a tighter hot-spot than the EZ1000 sized spot. I have a 1.2A Dereelight pill for the DBS reflector, and I'll try to get some test numbers later. Problem is I have to get up at 2:00 AM on a cloudy night to get good numbers right now. I'm in Alaska.


----------



## red02 (Jul 1, 2010)

I'd definitely appreciate it. Do this at your earliest convenience, I'm not in any rush to order from Australia. 

I'm just wondering if this an incremental upgrade, or if its really worth forking over the extra cash. Those A9 numbers are classically close to the DBS, so it should be a great indicator.

Alaska sound nice this time of year...


----------



## recDNA (Jul 1, 2010)

*[comment deleted - Rule 8 violation - DM51]*

This forum has fewer visitors.

Anybody know anything about the S version that is supposed to come out?


----------



## kengps (Jul 1, 2010)

I've only heard mentioned the "S". The big news seems to be "XM". Cree has an actual press release about the XM. Not gonna be a thrower LED though. More like a more-efficient version of an SST-50.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jul 1, 2010)

kengps said:


> Wow...so I actually tested something accurately Didn't know the formula for that. Something more....the brightness across the die is much more consistant than EZ1000. On my Aspherics I see a 29% difference in Lux from the center of the die image to the hottest part near the wires. The EZ900 is only 12% difference. I just noticed my Masterpiece Pro 1 with 54,000 lux has EZ1000. If I swap it with EZ900 I should be at 65,000 lux!!



It's always neat doing experiments and then having someone confirm that yes, those numbers make sense. observed 22%, calculated 23%. Very cool :twothumbs


----------



## kengps (Jul 1, 2010)

It is....I just went back and looked at the numbers. My exact number was 1.2263


----------



## saabluster (Jul 2, 2010)

recDNA said:


> *[comment deleted - **Rule 8** violation - DM51]*
> 
> This forum has fewer visitors.
> 
> Anybody know anything about the S version that is supposed to come out?


We don't put threads in forums based on how much traffic it will see but the relevance it has to a given forum. If people don't have the sense to come down here it's their loss. Besides how we going to get more traffic here if the good nuggets are posted elsewhere? 




kengps said:


> *[Post deleted - Rule 8 violation - DM51]*


 
Keep in mind moderator decisions are not up to public discussion. If you really feel he was in error you can PM him. 

Although you mentioned specific lights over there the subject matter and the reason for the post was the newly revised LED. Since the "point" of the thread was about an LED it seems best to be in the LED forum. I didn't think you were trying to use the other one as a pointer per se but I don't see the relevance of having two threads discussing the same topic side by side which was what was happening. 

You did say over there. 
"But wanted to say that the new R2 lights coming out are shipping with a new smaller die that gives 22-23% increase in lux."

Again there is no specific light that has come out with this new LED that you wanted to direct peoples attention to. There were some DIY swaps done by yourself but then those should be posted in the "Homemade and Modified" section.

It stands to reason that people will talk about the various possibilities as far as swapping in the new LED and its ramifications therein within the main thread dedicated to the LED. There is no need for a separate thread for this.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jul 2, 2010)

*[Baiting comment deleted - DM51]*


----------



## justlux (Jul 3, 2010)

Thank you for the good news. I love throw and i am coming up with all kinds of mods.

Does anyone know if the new XR-E R3 will be using the smaller EZ900 die? I am greedy and would like to sneak in a few extra lumens as well as a lot of lux


----------



## saabluster (Jul 3, 2010)

justlux said:


> Thank you for the good news. I love throw and i am coming up with all kinds of mods.
> 
> Does anyone know if the new XR-E R3 will be using the smaller EZ900 die? I am greedy and would like to sneak in a few extra lumens as well as a lot of lux


There is no evidence they will even bring out an R3 XR-E. In fact I'd say the evidence is mounting that they are intentionally holding the XR-E back by shunting all the best dies to the XP-E and reducing the size of the die to keep its output artificially lower. It's very sad really.


----------



## red02 (Jul 3, 2010)

saabluster said:


> There is no evidence they will even bring out an R3 XR-E. In fact I'd say the evidence is mounting that they are intentionally holding the XR-E back by shunting all the best dies to the XP-E and reducing the size of the die to keep its output artificially lower. It's very sad really.



Why would they do that? Don't they have a vested interest in producing the highest output LEDs?


----------



## Lampyris noctiluca (Jul 3, 2010)

red02 said:


> Why would they do that? Don't they have a vested interest in producing the highest output LEDs?



I think it is because the XP.. leds are cheaper to produce and "industry" finds them easier to handle as they are just like smt components. 

Shame on them!


----------



## saabluster (Jul 3, 2010)

red02 said:


> Why would they do that? Don't they have a vested interest in producing the highest output LEDs?


They have a vested interest in being a profitable company. Everything else springs from this. 

You see the same thing in the automotive segment where manufacturers will lower the output of the same engine in a cheaper model so it will not steal sales from the more profitable flagship. It happens all the time. I don't know that is Cree's intention but it sure seems that way doesn't it? 

Now they have Genll ez900 dies putting out the same amount as the old top-o-the-line Genl ez1000. That has to mean that Genll ez1000 in R4 and R5 are right around the corner but I can almost guarantee the XR-E will never see it. They will all be going to the XP-E. It is a far cheaper package to produce for Cree and I imagine the profit is higher on them as well. 1+1=?


----------



## red02 (Jul 3, 2010)

saabluster said:


> They have a vested interest in being a profitable company. Everything else springs from this.
> 
> You see the same thing in the automotive segment where manufacturers will lower the output of the same engine in a cheaper model so it will not steal sales from the more profitable flagship. It happens all the time. I don't know that is Cree's intention but it sure seems that way doesn't it?
> 
> Now they have Genll ez900 dies putting out the same amount as the old top-o-the-line Genl ez1000. That has to mean that Genll ez1000 in R4 and R5 are right around the corner but I can almost guarantee the XR-E will never see it. They will all be going to the XP-E. It is a far cheaper package to produce for Cree and I imagine the profit is higher on them as well. 1+1=?



Good point, I wonder if things would be different if they had more competition. Cost/performance wins in the end, even when performance isn't the best... real shame I really like the XRE.


----------



## kengps (Jul 3, 2010)

Well...I'm pretty happy right now with the EZ900. I just finished building a solid aluminum heat-sinked pill for my Lumapower Turbo-Force head last night. It is only 6% down in lux compared to my Aspheric Tiablo with the same LED/Driver. The hot-spot is actually smaller than the Aspheric die image. By my measurements I'm getting over 90,000 lux with it. But I have to say I actually prefer the Aspheric. It gives a nice even illumination of the target, whereas the Lumapower is hottest in the very center of the hot-spot, and gives a much smaller viewable area at long range. I never thought a reflector would have a smaller spot than an Aspheric, but here it is.







I'm gonna have to get some close-ups of the EZ1000 vs EZ900 die image to show how much better light distribution is across the die. I noticed much less difference on the EZ900 between the middle and the hotter edge. I only just noticed that I can see the difference in photos of the change in lux output across the die.






Here's the pill. Basically I removed the thin bulkhead the LED sits on, and made a solid, thick heat-sink. I then epoxied it into the inside and mounted the LED. It has really great Lux numbers with time now. Doesn't quickly fade on start up.


----------



## saabluster (Jul 3, 2010)

kengps said:


> But I have to say I actually prefer the Aspheric. It gives a nice even illumination of the target, whereas the Lumapower is hottest in the very center of the hot-spot, and gives a much smaller viewable area at long range. I never thought a reflector would have a smaller spot than an Aspheric, but here it is.



I tried explaining this to people a while back that complained about the "needle" like beam from the DEFT. I always found the DEFT's beam to be the same size or larger than the hotspots from the reflector based dedicated throw lights. People are like sheep though and believe subjective data instead of objective. The spill people like in a reflectored throw light is of no benefit for the purpose of the light. It can't light up anything more than 30' away. 

People say "I like being able to see the path in front of me with the spill". The thing is when you are using a spot or throw light you don't do it on the run. In order to see things far away you need to stop in order to both see and hold the light steady enough to keep the hotspot on the target. Therefore if you are not moving you hardly need to see the path. Besides that is what other lights are for such as headlamps. It's sad that even a lot of the veterans here don't understand this. Oh well...I'll get off my soapbox now.


----------



## kengps (Jul 3, 2010)

I've made that argument myself.....I like throwers that allow me to see where I'm walking too. But for ultimate throw I do indeed want no spill. So my eyes are adjusted for seeing into the dark at long range. There are some throwers out there right now that in my opinion are severly compromised in design, namely the JetBeam RRT-3 and M2S. They have a searing hot spot with no gradient off the side, and really wide side-spill that surrounds you with light. Here is a beam-shot of a good reflector like the DBS's and the Catapult vs. the M2S


----------



## kengps (Jul 3, 2010)

Here's another good comparison beamshot I got last night. Note the two spots on the right. Both are identical Tiablo A9's. Far-right is EZ1000, next to the right is EZ900.


----------



## bigchelis (Jul 4, 2010)

I apologize in advance if my wording or jargon is incorrect but I have a couple questions.....

In the past I got XP-E R3 P60 drop-ins thinking more throw due to the smaller surface area, then I find out the view angle is way more then the XR-E R2 which is 90'. This explains why my XP-E R3 has less throw then my XR-E R2 drop-ins inspite of the smaller hotspot.



*So, this EZ900 R2 = view angle is less or more then XR-E R2*?

I think it is obious that it has a smaller surface area which gives a smaller hot spot, but so does the XP-E. What about the view angle: is it the same as the super thrower XRE-E R2?????

*My XR-E R2's run fine at 2A with adequate heatsinks, but these are not as good in that department right?*

*Anybody want to sell me one? Please!!!!* 



Than you all,
bigC


----------



## DM51 (Jul 4, 2010)

A number of posts and comments have been deleted.

saabluster's advice in Post #13 above is good. 

Members need to be conversant with Rule 8, and understand that moderator actions are not for open discussion on the board. If you wish to question a moderator decision, you can do it by PM.


----------



## red02 (Jul 4, 2010)

bigchelis said:


> *Anybody want to sell me one? Please!!!!*



Pretty sure it was mentioned that cutter had a few.


----------



## bigchelis (Jul 4, 2010)

red02 said:


> Pretty sure it was mentioned that cutter had a few.


 

I been searching that site and can't find the EZ900


----------



## Nos (Jul 4, 2010)

bigchelis said:


> I been searching that site and can't find the EZ900




EZ1000 or EZ900 is the name of the die, which is built in the XR-E. Newer XR-Es have the EZ900 older have EZ1000. Its a roulette or maybe you can ask for some kind of selection.


----------



## kengps (Jul 4, 2010)

I ordered some from Cutter last week. All the High Bin XR-E R2's ship on EZ900 die's now. Cutter rep told me that maybe some of the warmer R2's still come on EZ1000. Just order an "R2 WH bin". You'll get the EZ900 die. 3 of the first 6 I ordered were damaged, so Cutter is promising to check quality before they ship out. I sent some of the damaged ones to Saabluster. He is going to test them to see what they can handle in Amps. Not sure if he's been able to do that yet. He was told they can't handle as much power as the EZ1000's. I've been running my EZ900's at 1.4Amps with no problems.


----------



## Black Rose (Jul 4, 2010)

red02 said:


> Why would they do that? Don't they have a vested interest in producing the highest output LEDs?


I'm actually surprised that Cree has not yet announced they intend to EOL the XR series of LEDs.

They seem to be putting all of the new goodies into the XP series.


----------



## Christexan (Jul 7, 2010)

Regarding someone's comments about Cree intentionally "holding back" the XR series by using the smaller die, as others mentioned, that isn't logical, and is almost certainly NOT what is happening. 

More accurately what is happening is this, if thye use 6" (150mm, or ) wafers for production, if each die is 1mmx1mm, then the resultant yield is (reducing to 80% for the waste at the edges of the wafer where "square" doesn't fit "round") =70686*.8=56550 (approximately). If they reduce the die area to 0.9x0.9= .81mm^2, then they can yield 70686/.81=87267*.8=69813. So for a 0.1mm change in die size, they can produce an additional 13,000 dice per wafer. 

So it comes down to simple economics, they can produce 13,000 additional dice (in these example numbers) for XR-E (and other series), that meet the required published specifications, at no additional cost over the original production costs. It would actually cost them MORE to continue to produce the original EZ1000 dice for the XR-Es due to lower yields, just to improve the specs beyond the currently published, already industry leading, specifications. 

No conspiracy, nothing complicated, simple economics and math, they can produce more of product A at a lower cost while still meeting the minimum requirements, using the newer production methods.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jul 7, 2010)

Christexan said:


> Regarding someone's comments about Cree intentionally "holding back" the XR series by using the smaller die, as others mentioned, that isn't logical, and is almost certainly NOT what is happening.



Well, I think you just explained what he did, but just more completely and with the math to help show the point. It just depends on how you look at it. From a top-of-the-line performance point of view, Cree's holding back the XR line by making the emitter smaller to approximate the same max brightness. From an economical perspective, though, Cree's simply trying to get more LEDs per InGaN. Of course, like everything else, it all boils down to what's more profitable. :thumbsup:


----------



## saabluster (Jul 7, 2010)

Christexan said:


> Regarding someone's comments about Cree intentionally "holding back" the XR series by using the smaller die, as others mentioned, that isn't logical, and is almost certainly NOT what is happening.
> 
> More accurately what is happening is this, if thye use 6" (150mm, or ) wafers for production, if each die is 1mmx1mm, then the resultant yield is (reducing to 80% for the waste at the edges of the wafer where "square" doesn't fit "round") =70686*.8=56550 (approximately). If they reduce the die area to 0.9x0.9= .81mm^2, then they can yield 70686/.81=87267*.8=69813. So for a 0.1mm change in die size, they can produce an additional 13,000 dice per wafer.
> 
> ...



You are missing the whole point. I agree that one of the reasons is that it makes the product cheaper to produce. But if that was *the* reason then why haven't they switched the XP-E over to these new smaller dice? So they want to save money on the XR-E but not the XP-E?:thinking: The XP-E and XR-E have always had the same dice and then they started shunting the highest bin dice over to the XP line a while back when they announced the volume availability of the XP-E in R3 bin. Where is the R3 bin for the XR-E?


----------



## Christexan (Jul 7, 2010)

Okay, here is my question, what size die does the XP-E use? Because I sure can't find it, searching Google, CPF, news releases, etc. My assumption (and it is/was just that) has always been that the XP-E uses the EZ900 and has since it was released. The XR-E switch was a side, or more accurately, a trickle-down effect of the XP-E development.

All of that is assumption on my part, can someone (Anyone?) find what the real die size is, and what the "official" part is in an XP-E? (EZ900, 1000, other)? 

If my assumption is correct, then my previous statements stand, it would be idiotic of Cree to continue wasting money on a .98 die for the XR-E series if a .88 die gets the job done. 

If my assumption is incorrect, then can someone point out the data to verify that? (I don't have any XP-E's myself, so can't cut it open and measure it).


----------



## saabluster (Jul 7, 2010)

Christexan said:


> Okay, here is my question, what size die does the XP-E use? Because I sure can't find it, searching Google, CPF, news releases, etc. My assumption (and it is/was just that) has always been that the XP-E uses the EZ900 and has since it was released. The XR-E switch was a side, or more accurately, a trickle-down effect of the XP-E development.
> 
> All of that is assumption on my part, can someone (Anyone?) find what the real die size is, and what the "official" part is in an XP-E? (EZ900, 1000, other)?
> 
> ...


You may be correct. I did find once where they said what die goes in what package but I can't find the document anymore. As a matter of fact they have removed the information for the Gen1 ezbrights so maybe that means they are no longer being made at all. And with the Genll ez1000 only showing to be in green it does stand to reason they must now be using the ez900 in the XP-E as well. It is easy to see the difference in the XR-E because of the copper color around the die but maybe that is not the case in the XP-E. I have an R3 XP-E I could tear apart if I must but it is my only one. I would imagine the R3 bin is most likely to be a Genll. 

Let's just say this is indeed the case. That the XP-E uses the ez900 now too. Why doesn't the XR-E have an R3 bin? Who knows, I suppose it could be explained by the XP having a better extracting package than the XR but we have no evidence of this and I have my doubts on that front. 

There are pluses and minuses for each package. The larger dome of the XR will allow more light out. But the die is somewhat sunk down into the package and some of the light that could go straight out of the XP has to bounce off the aluminum ring before exiting which no doubt saps some output. That said that is at the very edge and there is not as much light at that angle anyways. The XR uses three optical materials which could, if done right, assist in light extraction more than the use of only two in the XP(Since I have not done a tear-down on the XP I am making a few assumptions here).


----------



## kengps (Jul 10, 2010)

Sad to report that Cutter, after assuring me "only older, lower bin LED's have the older, larger die" , shipped me all EZ1000 LED's.


----------



## Nos (Jul 14, 2010)

Check this 

right: XR-E R2 WH ~6 month EZ1000
left: XR-E R2 WC from Solarforce Skyline II EZ 900
















in front of my eyes the difference is even bigger. The EZ900 seems so tiny next to the EZ1000. Maybe ill get a chance for A-B beamshots


----------



## TORCH_BOY (Jul 14, 2010)

I can see the difference


----------



## red02 (Jul 14, 2010)

Any chance you can post photos with the XPE die and EZ900 die side by side, I'm trying to see if my Dereelight pill came with the EZ900 and need the comparison.


----------



## kengps (Jul 14, 2010)

red02 said:


> Any chance you can post photos with the XPE die and EZ900 die side by side, I'm trying to see if my Dereelight pill came with the EZ900 and need the comparison.


 
Just look at the die. EZ900 has a copper color band around the yellow phospher.

Like this


----------



## red02 (Jul 15, 2010)

No luck with the dereelight module... thanks for the up close view, now it will be easy to tell which one is the EZ900 without the comparison.


----------



## bigchelis (Jul 19, 2010)

I got a set of these from DX now and they are in fact the EZ900's.


http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.15943


----------



## kengps (Jul 19, 2010)

In another thread "Gyani" says he ordered that SKU from DX in May and they were EZ1000. Hard to say. The ones I got from Cutter were EZ900, but the ones they just received from Cree were EZ1000.....I think it's luck of the draw right now.


----------



## kengps (Jul 23, 2010)

kengps said:


> Well...I'm pretty happy right now with the EZ900. I just finished building a solid aluminum heat-sinked pill for my Lumapower Turbo-Force head last night. It is only 6% down in lux compared to my Aspheric Tiablo with the same LED/Driver. The hot-spot is actually smaller than the Aspheric die image. By my measurements I'm getting over 90,000 lux with it. (103,000 lux actual) But I have to say I actually prefer the Aspheric. It gives a nice even illumination of the target, whereas the Lumapower is hottest in the very center of the hot-spot, and gives a much smaller viewable area at long range. I never thought a reflector would have a smaller spot than an Aspheric, but here it is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Just an update.....I'm getting 103,000 lux with this pill in Turboforce head.


----------



## red02 (Jul 24, 2010)

I may have missed it, but what did you get for the Tiablo A9 5m lux?


----------



## kengps (Jul 24, 2010)

Tiablo A9 with 1.4A, UCL, and EZ900 is 42,000 lux. I do my measurements at 10M. By comparison I'm getting 43,600 with RRT-1.


----------



## red02 (Jul 24, 2010)

kengps said:


> Tiablo A9 with 1.4A, UCL, and EZ900 is 42,000 lux. I do my measurements at 10M. By comparison I'm getting 43,600 with RRT-1.



Thanks for the data, but I'm wondering if I should hold off on getting a 1.4A EZ1000 to get the same driver to feed a EZ900 for the DBS. If the difference in real world applications is meaningful, I will wait until I can get a reliable source for the EZ900s. 

Unfortunately my only meaningful means of comparison is the EZ1000 @ 5m which I already have and know the lux figures by means of Jay's set up. I would appreciate if you could share your findings about the EZ900 in the A9 at 5m to this end.


----------



## kengps (Jul 24, 2010)

Theoretically the 5M and 10M sample when corrected back to 1M should be the same. I use 10M because aspherics need a little more room to get focused.


----------



## red02 (Jul 24, 2010)

So, 1600? Does the inverse square law even apply since the beam is not uniform and has a not known angle of emission?


----------



## kengps (Jul 25, 2010)

It would read 1680 at 5M. Inverse square law works.


----------



## bigchelis (Jul 25, 2010)

Does anybody have the EZ900 R2's in a P60 drop-in?

If so what are the lux numbers?

The EZ100's were up to 9500k or at least mine with OP P60 reflector.


----------



## red02 (Jul 25, 2010)

Even the EZ1000s got about 10k on the Javelin...


----------



## kengps (Jul 25, 2010)

bigchelis said:


> Does anybody have the EZ900 R2's in a P60 drop-in?
> 
> If so what are the lux numbers?
> 
> The EZ100's were up to 9500k or at least mine with OP P60 reflector.


 
I seen a 22-23% increase in lux with both reflectors and Aspheric. Seems to correspond exactly to the decrease in area of the emitter. .81 sq/mm vs 1 sq/mm = 1.23


----------



## heng84 (Jul 26, 2010)

bigchelis said:


> I got a set of these from DX now and they are in fact the EZ900's.
> 
> 
> http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.15943


 
haha i ordered 2 different q5 version and r2 version (exactly from that link) .. and i received all the same die but on different boards... looked through the magnifying glass.. does that mean that im getting all r2 version ez900 versions? because im confused.. they all looked the same with brown colour outside the phospur or something sorry for my poor english


----------



## saabluster (Jul 26, 2010)

heng84 said:


> haha i ordered 2 different q5 version and r2 version (exactly from that link) .. and i received all the same die but on different boards... looked through the magnifying glass.. does that mean that im getting all r2 version ez900 versions? because im confused.. they all looked the same with brown colour outside the phospur or something sorry for my poor english


Well it does mean you the ez900 die but does not mean you have the R2 bin. Keep in mind where you got those.


----------



## heng84 (Jul 28, 2010)

saabluster said:


> Well it does mean you the ez900 die but does not mean you have the R2 bin. Keep in mind where you got those.


 
thanks you are right.. q5 and r2 how to differentiate?? only can see the difference from the lightmeter?? because i ordered q5 and r2 they both look exactly the same under magnifying glass


----------



## saabluster (Jul 28, 2010)

heng84 said:


> thanks you are right.. q5 and r2 how to differentiate?? only can see the difference from the lightmeter?? because i ordered q5 and r2 they both look exactly the same under magnifying glass


There is no way to tell a difference in bin by looking at the LED. You do indeed need a light meter to see the difference especially with two bins that are back to back. Since you can't tell externally you really need to have a dealer you trust when buying LEDs. Even then it is good to test and make sure if the high bin is critical for you.


----------



## red02 (Jul 28, 2010)

saabluster said:


> There is no way to tell a difference in bin by looking at the LED. You do indeed need a light meter to see the difference especially with two bins that are back to back. Since you can't tell externally you really need to have a dealer you trust when buying LEDs. Even then it is good to test and make sure if the high bin is critical for you.



Sounds like DX is less than ideal to get EZ900 R2s. Am I correct in assuming that EZ900 dies come in all flux bins?


----------



## saabluster (Jul 28, 2010)

red02 said:


> Am I correct in assuming that EZ900 dies come in all flux bins?


As far as we know that is the case.


----------



## red02 (Jul 28, 2010)

If the difference between in bins is that close such you cannot tell without a light meter, does it really matter if you get a Q5 or R2 EZ900?


----------



## Linger (Aug 1, 2010)

It definitely does to those who read this thread and boogle at the %22 increase and buy emitters far and wide hoping to receive the lucky 900.


----------



## saabluster (Aug 1, 2010)

red02 said:


> If the difference between in bins is that close such you cannot tell without a light meter, does it really matter if you get a Q5 or R2 EZ900?


In general no it does not matter. If you are trying to push an LED to the very limit then it can certainly make a difference though.


----------



## znomit (Aug 1, 2010)

The bin bump doesn't need to mean brighter. In fact if you have a well designed system you should have enough light already. The bin bump might mean 7% less emitters, 7% less power and heat, 7% longer runtimes from your flashlight etc...


----------



## Linger (Aug 3, 2010)

The previous link to DX is correct. I looked at the order I recieved two weeks ago, the R2's I received are 900 dies, visibly smaller.


----------



## jirik_cz (Aug 3, 2010)

How do you know that they are really R2s? You can not trust DX in this matter. They could be easily just Q2s...


----------



## Linger (Aug 3, 2010)

jirik_cz said:


> They could be easily just Q2s...


The couldn't actually, but thanx for that.

I'm considering desoldering it from the star vs grinding the star down. So different to work with after all these xpg's lately.


----------



## Christexan (Aug 3, 2010)

Couple of random thoughts/replies popping in here quickly...

First, Linger, I've desoldered a few LEDs from heatsinks, the easiest (least painful) way I've found is to clip the star upside down (helping hands alligator clips) and hit the back of the sink with a torch. Place something soft (preferably lint free) under the emitter, and the moment the package is desoldered it will fall off the sink. Tilt it slightly though, surface tension can hold it "flat" for a little longer than desired, with a slight tilt it'll immediately fall when the solder liquifies in my experience. This minimizes the LED package exposure to the heat source (any suitable heatsource, a heatgun for instance, will do, torch is easy though). Make sure to deflect the flow so it moves "center to outside" though, you don't want the flame wrapping under an edge and forward over the LED. Remove the heat instantly to keep any solder drips from following the LED (hasn't happened to me, but it possibly could)

Secondly, don't consider the "copper edge" a future guarantee on EX900/1000 comparisons. The reason that edge is exposed is that their supply of LED packages for the EZ1000 is/was greater than the number they've produced. So they've used that same package for the EZ900, and will likely continue to do so until they run out of EZ1000 dice and packages. At that point they will possibly order an "EZ900" variant that matches the die outline, so there won't be the copper edge anymore. Saves the package maker $0.01 per 1000, or however much, if retooling to a 0.88mm per side saves enough material over the expected production life of the EZ900 to pay for the retooling, they'll eventually retool. It might not, but just be aware that the "quick-check" isn't necessarily guaranteed forever. 

Keep in mind that most LED (or any semiconductor) wafer production is done completely separate from packaging (usually separate facilities, even different countries), so they don't necessarily move/change at the same rate. 

Anyhow, a random thought, not sure it's affected anyone yet, or it might never (if it costs $300,000 to retool, and they only expect to save $50,000 over the total volume of packages produced (millions), they may not retool).


----------



## red02 (Aug 3, 2010)

Linger said:


> The couldn't actually, but thanx for that.
> 
> I'm considering desoldering it from the star vs grinding the star down. So different to work with after all these xpg's lately.



Why not? If they over report the flux bin by one bin, why not 2 or more bins? 

DX isn't really know for their stout trustworthiness.


----------



## Linger (Aug 4, 2010)

re: why not?
b/c when I add power, the new xre r2 900 die (as recieved from dx) has a smaller & brighter hot-spot than previously recieved 1000 die. Wasn't that the point of this whole thread?


----------



## Linger (Aug 4, 2010)

Christexan said:


> don't consider the "copper edge" a future guarantee on EX900/1000 comparisons.



Indeed its not even a present guarantee. Having a look I see an earlier emitter, on a 1000die recieved Jan 09, has a similar looking copper edge.

Thanx for the tips re: de-soldering. Last time I used soldering iron, basically reverse of my reflow process. But I've a nice butane torch now so I'll give your idea a try.


----------



## Walterk (Aug 9, 2010)

Cutter recently send me the WH 1000 die, the so called lottery?
DX send me the 900 die, don't know what bin, but 900 as advertised. 
Side to side the difference in size is remarkable.
(Haven't finished testing yet.)


----------



## dhouseng (Aug 9, 2010)

My 900 R2 from DX driven at 1.2A is not brighter than the ordinary R2 driven at 1.0A. Why?


----------



## saabluster (Aug 10, 2010)

dhouseng said:


> My 900 R2 from DX driven at 1.2A is not brighter than the ordinary R2 driven at 1.0A. Why?


Well it depends on what you mean by bright. Are you referring to surface brightness or total light output? If it is an R2 it doesn't matter what die it has it will put out the same *amount* of light. Also what are you basing your statement on? Your eyes or a light meter?


----------



## kengps (Aug 10, 2010)

dhouseng said:


> My 900 R2 from DX driven at 1.2A is not brighter than the ordinary R2 driven at 1.0A. Why?


 
The R2 will output the same lumen whether its EZ900 or EZ1000. The difference is "concentration" to put it simply. The EZ900 gives a smaller, more intense hot-spot.


----------



## Nos (Aug 10, 2010)

Im running a EZ900 XR-E successful at 1,75A  Without angry blue.

Directly soldered to copper this current seems not be a problem.


----------



## kengps (Aug 10, 2010)

anybody know where that XR-E R2 chart is that gives output lumens for input current? I recall 345 lumens for 1.4A, and 400 for 1.7A ?? I'm thinking I would sure like to get my little Tiablo based light from 120,000 Lux range, into the 135,000 range. An AW 18650 gives me over 1:45 minutes now. I wouldn't miss the reduction in run-time, as it's already way more than I ever use or need.


----------



## panicmechanic (Aug 10, 2010)

Here you go.


----------



## Tally-ho (Aug 14, 2010)

Linger said:


> The previous link to DX is correct. I looked at the order I recieved two weeks ago, the R2's I received are 900 dies, visibly smaller.


I ordered 2 sku.11836 from DX 8 days ago, received 1 EZ1000 and 1 EZ900. I prefer the slight neutral tint of the EZ1000.


----------



## Wiggle (Aug 23, 2010)

I think I have an EZ900 R2 in my spear clone, but that was put it in afterwards by me and I honestly can't remember where I got it. I was wondering how the hot spot from the Spear Clone was as tight as my Masterpiece Pro-1 when it has a smaller reflector. Looking closely I think I got anEZ900 die, do you agree?












Light on left is a P60 host and LEDs are at close to same height. I feel kind of bad cause I loc-tited it in there after focusing it. But look here, it produces a slight tighter spot than my MPP-1. MPP-1 still outthrows though because the Spear has a modest driver.

MPP1- Left, Spear clone- Right


----------



## kengps (Aug 25, 2010)

The EZ900 definately makes the spot smaller. I have a EZ900 driven at 1.4 Amnps in my little D-mini VX Tele-Force that is making 27,800 lux. Talk about a laser beam....unbelievable what it does for the smaller reflectors. I don't like it at all though with the big reflectors such as MPP1 or Lumapower Turbo-Force head. Despite the 103,000 lux I'm getting. Someone coined the phrase "Dyno-Queen" the other day ago, and that fits the TF head with EZ900 perfectly.


----------

