# xre vs xml for throw?



## abinok (Jun 27, 2011)

I am using a light with a xre r2 driven at 1A in a 36mm smo reflector. While I have some experience with multi die leds... the p7, I'm wondering if the xml can produce comparable throw with the same.size reflector. I'm looking specifically at the thrunite scorpion v2 with turbohead.


----------



## RepProdigious (Jun 27, 2011)

I've done an XM-L emitter and driver (shiningbeam) swap on my spear clone and the hot-spot did get bigger. However, because the shear output is quite a bit more my guesstimate is that intensity in the hotspot is still the same. I'd have to say that in a reflector as deep as in the spear results are good as long as you need/like a big hotspot and can live with very reduced runtimes.


----------



## jiuong (Jun 27, 2011)

If the XML is also driven at 1A then the answer is a definite no. It might be able to have a comparable throw if driven at higher amps.


----------



## rickypanecatyl (Jun 27, 2011)

I'm sure somebody more qualified will step in here but my understanding is the XP G is ALMOST as good as the XR E and the XM L is ALMOST as good as the XP G IF AND ONLY IF they are all driven to the max. IE An XML can throw almost as far as the XPG in the same size reflector is the XML is driven at 3 amps and the XPG at 1.5 amps and the XRE at 1 amp.

2 problems though - on similar size lights they probably won't drive the XML to the same % of its max as the XRE due to heat reasons and secondly, the XRE will almost undoubtedly appear to throw farther as the less total light wont be as likely to bounce back and wreck your night vision.


----------



## abinok (Jun 27, 2011)

Makes sense to me. The scorpion v2 starts out @ 3a on high compared to just the one amp on the xre. As the saying goes, quantity has a quality of its own.


----------



## tre (Jun 27, 2011)

No, a maximally driven XML will never throw as far as a maximally driven XRE in the same reflector. The XRE has a much higher surface brightness (lumens per square meter of emitter) which means the XRE beam is more intense. That higher intensity = greater throw. The only way for the XML to throw farther is to put it in a larger reflector or over drive it to raise the surface brightness.


----------



## Napalm (Jun 27, 2011)

abinok said:


> As the saying goes, quantity has a quality of its own.



:thumbsup:

You can tune and turbo charge all day long, but when the rubber hits the road, there's nothing like more engine displacement.

Nap.


----------



## Napalm (Jun 27, 2011)

tre said:


> No, a maximally driven XML will never throw as far as a maximally driven XRE in the same reflector.



We all know what happens when you replace an XRE with an XML in a 1xAA EDC light.

But we ain't seen the other side of the story.

Did anyone yet replace the XML in a Fenix TK-41 with an XRE? How did that go?

Nap.


----------



## tre (Jun 27, 2011)

Napalm said:


> We all know what happens when you replace an XRE with an XML in a 1xAA EDC light.
> 
> But we ain't seen the other side of the story.
> 
> ...


 
:lolsign: I would love for somebody to try this and see the real world results.


----------



## jorn (Jun 27, 2011)

No reflector can send out a hotspot that is more intense than the led die actually is. Some pepole find it hard to belive and might say something like: "just make a reflector to focus all those lumens better" or something.. If we made a bigger/better reflector for the xm-l, then the same can be done with the xr-e until we have the "perfect reflector" for both. And the xr-e will still end up throwing further. Since the xr-e has more surface brightness, it will always have the best potential for throw. 

The xr-e will throw better but the xm-l will have a bigger hotspot (might be useful), and brighter spill. Imo bright spill is blinding and ruins my ability so see stuff at the far end ot the light's reach. The xm-l will have ~1/3 of the runtime 1 amp vs 3 amp.


----------



## abinok (Jun 27, 2011)

The light I'm considering replacing has phenomenal throw. It will punch out to 150yds with ease. The sacrifice being that the spill is much harder to use. I have a flip up cover on it with some diffusion film that creates a absolutely smooth wall of light... but its an either/or proposition. I've been as to find plenty of beamshots comparing xpg towers to xml lights, but nothing with the xre. Following the car analogy we can compare sports cars all day long but a good bike will smoke them all...


----------



## bigchelis (Jun 27, 2011)

Whether its at 1A~2A for the XR-E R2 using the same reflector it will have way more throw then the XM-L.

The XM-L has to be driven at 4A~6A or so, to keep up in throw/Lux to a 2A XR-E in same reflector. I know I tried and tested.

The XM-L is more usefull though and has alot more desirable throw even if its not as much lux. My testing was with Rebel Deep Reflector and Solarforce Masterpiece Reflector on a 2D Mag.

bigC


----------



## Napalm (Jun 27, 2011)

jorn said:


> No reflector can send out a hotspot that is more intense than the led die actually is.



"Intense"? Can you be more specific? which measurement unit are you using to express this?

nap.


----------



## jorn (Jun 27, 2011)

Lumen pr mm^2 if you want it on a silver spoon. Or call it lux if you want (lumens pr meter^2)
The xr-e is 1x1mm= 1mm^2
The xm-l is 2x2mm= 4mm^2

Does the xm-l put out 4 times more lumens than a xr-e? no? Then the xr-e is more intense.
Just like the sparks from welding is more intense than a match. You can stare at a match, but if you stare at someone welding, ur eyes wil hurt for many days.. That's what i mean with intense.


----------



## Napalm (Jun 27, 2011)

jorn said:


> Lumen pr mm^2 if you want it on a silver spoon. Or call it lux if you want (lumens pr meter^2)
> The xr-e is 1x1mm= 1mm^2
> The xm-l is 2x2mm= 4mm^2
> 
> ...



Your theory is valid for de-domed LEDs with diverging or parallel beam reflectors. Don't forget that you can converge a beam too.

And once you add the micro-lens you're screwing the whole thing pretty much.

Nap.


----------



## jorn (Jun 27, 2011)

Im not forgetting that.
IF someone was able to make the "perfect throw reflector" for both xr-e and xm-l that coliminated the beams 100%, sending all light staight forwards. (Not that useful in real life, but still it would give the most throw we will EVER be able to get out of those two led's.. )The xr-e would have a 1x1 mm hotspot (with no spill) at all ranges. The xm-l would have a 2x2 mm hotspot at any range.
Since the xr-e has more lumens pr mm^2 It would have more lux (throw).


----------



## EnduringEagle (Jun 27, 2011)

I know my approach is not very scientific but I just checked some YouTube videos and none of the XML lights throw nearly as well as the XRE or XPG. It seems somewhat night and day.


----------



## shane45_1911 (Jun 27, 2011)

Guys, get a room. 

We get it, the XR-E will always throw more than the XM-L. You are preaching to the choir here.


----------



## EnduringEagle (Jun 27, 2011)

Here is an interesting example of XML with much higher lumens being out thrown on the same platform.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQpTdDAsEkU


----------



## tre (Jun 27, 2011)

bigchelis said:


> Whether its at 1A~2A for the XR-E R2 using the same reflector it will have way more throw then the XM-L.
> 
> The XM-L has to be driven at 4A~6A or so, to keep up in throw/Lux to a 2A XR-E in same reflector. I know I tried and tested.
> 
> ...


 


Napalm said:


> We all know what happens when you replace an XRE with an XML in a 1xAA EDC light.
> 
> But we ain't seen the other side of the story.
> 
> ...


 
The Rebel deep reflector is about the same size as the TK41.


----------



## Napalm (Jun 27, 2011)

EnduringEagle said:


> Here is an interesting example of XML with much higher lumens being out thrown on the same platform.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQpTdDAsEkU


 
Your link LED me to this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk_03gXvf90

Now I want! 

You guys are costing me too much money.

Nap. :naughty:


----------



## peterharvey73 (Jun 27, 2011)

rickypanecatyl said:


> I'm sure somebody more qualified will step in here but my understanding is the XP G is ALMOST as good as the XR E and the XM L is ALMOST as good as the XP G IF AND ONLY IF they are all driven to the max. IE An XML can throw almost as far as the XPG in the same size reflector is the XML is driven at 3 amps and the XPG at 1.5 amps and the XRE at 1 amp.


 
I understand all the stuff about about emitter size, R2 @ 1x1mm, XM-L @ 2x2mm, reflector size, the ratio between emitter and reflectors, and the emitter output.
I also understand about bigger emitters with brighter outputs, and surface brightness ratios.

However, what I am curious about is this XR-E driven @ 1 Amp max, XP-G @ 1.5 Amps, and XM-L @ 3 Amps.
So, given the *same* reflector size limitations esp in small compact pocket single CR123 size and single 18650 size flashlights, the big XM-L emitter must be driven at higher amps like 3 amps to achieve the same throw as the XR-E @ 1 Amp.
(1) However, couldn't the XR-E be driven at 3 Amps too??? Then it would still out throw the XM-L!
(2) What determines the maximum amperage at which any given size emitter can be driven to?

The only disadvantages of driving an emitter at higher amps is:
(1) more heat, and 
(2) rapid depletion of battery life?
Is that true???


----------



## gcbryan (Jun 28, 2011)

peterharvey73 said:


> I understand all the stuff about about emitter size, R2 @ 1x1mm, XM-L @ 2x2mm, reflector size, the ratio between emitter and reflectors, and the emitter output.
> I also understand about bigger emitters with brighter outputs, and surface brightness ratios.
> 
> However, what I am curious about is this XR-E driven @ 1 Amp max, XP-G @ 1.5 Amps, and XM-L @ 3 Amps.
> ...


 
You're close but not quite right. Those figures 1A,1.5A, and 3A are from the Cree spec sheets. If you drive them harder than that you're outside of the Cree specs. 

The heat will go up and if not dealt with the lumens will go down. If you drive it even harder the LED life will be shortened and if you drive it harder still the LED will burn up.

The larger emitters can handle more heat.

You also say that if driven to 1A,1.5A, and 3A respectively each emitter will have the same surface brightness. That isn't true. The XR-E at 1A has a greater surface brightness than the XP-G at 1.5A and the XM-L at 3A. That's why we say that it has the potential to throw further than the rest. That is when each of those emitters is driven to the max spec on it's data sheet the XR-E still has the greatest surface brightness.


----------



## peterharvey73 (Jun 28, 2011)

Thanks for the information GC - I am slowly learning the science behind how flashlights work.

Now I know about Cree spec sheets, maximum amperages, and that the new bigger emitters can handle more amps because they have the physical size to handle more heat.
It's interesting that even at only 1 amp, the little XR-E still has more surface brightness and throw, than a big XM-L driven at a very hard 3 amps...


----------



## ^Gurthang (Jun 28, 2011)

The XRE vs. XML discussion does raise one question in my mind. Why doesn't Cree produce an XM-L emitter w/ the same surface brightness as the XR-E??? Can someone explain that to me??? Not trying to be wise-*** just curious if there is some reason that it appears that the XM-L is a lesser emitter when compared to the XR-E based on surface brightness.


----------



## jorn (Jun 28, 2011)

> It's interesting that even at only 1 amp, the little XR-E still has more surface brightness and throw, than a big XM-L driven at a very hard 3 amps



The xr-e has 1 amp pr square mm. The Xm-l has less amps pr mm^2. Its driven at 3 amp but it got 4 times the areal of the xr-e, so it gets 0.75 amp pr square mm when driven to max spec.


----------



## bigchelis (Jun 28, 2011)

peterharvey73 said:


> I understand all the stuff about about emitter size, R2 @ 1x1mm, XM-L @ 2x2mm, reflector size, the ratio between emitter and reflectors, and the emitter output.
> I also understand about bigger emitters with brighter outputs, and surface brightness ratios.
> 
> However, what I am curious about is this XR-E driven @ 1 Amp max, XP-G @ 1.5 Amps, and XM-L @ 3 Amps.
> ...



Given youre scenario, which I have seen and done with XR-E R2 at 1.2A, XP-G R5 at1.4A, and XM-L at 2.8A. Same reflector same hosts = XR-E R2 just nearly doubles the throw, but the lumens are alot less with almost no spill.

The XR-E R2 can safely be driven at 1.5A~1.8A for efficient 350~380ish real OTF lumens if you can get some adequate copper heatsink and then it will just about keep up with most aspherics and beat some of them.

I find that the XM-L 6T Mag Rebels I have seen at 5A with copper and incredible LED to copper bonding do 60~65K lux. 

bigC


----------



## Bfunk3717 (Jun 28, 2011)

So what you guys are telling me is that even though my brother went out and bought a Jetbeam BC40 XM-L that puts out 830 ANSI lumens, I will still _significantly_ out-throw him with my Eagletac M2XC4 triple XR-E and its 800 or so emitter lumens?


----------



## bigchelis (Jun 28, 2011)

Bfunk3717 said:


> So what you guys are telling me is that even though my brother went out and bought a Jetbeam BC40 XM-L that puts out 830 ANSI lumens, I will still _significantly_ out-throw him with my Eagletac M2XC4 triple XR-E and its 800 or so emitter lumens?


 
You might, but I always use a lux meter that can capture and hold the max setting. 

I think a tripple anything is a floody light and while 30K lux is throwy, for me being used to 60~80K lux its just not.

bigC


----------



## RepProdigious (Jun 28, 2011)

Its not a guarantee that any xre will out-throw any xml, its more about posibilities. An XML in a good reflector can out-throw a xre in a crappy one.... im unfamiliar with both ligts mentioned beam profile wise so no guarantees.


----------



## Bfunk3717 (Jun 28, 2011)

bigchelis said:


> You might, but I always use a lux meter that can capture and hold the max setting.
> 
> I think a tripple anything is a floody light and while 30K lux is throwy, for me being used to 60~80K lux its just not.
> 
> bigC



30k lux? Is that from the M2XC4?


----------



## bigchelis (Jun 28, 2011)

Bfunk3717 said:


> 30k lux? Is that from the M2XC4?


 
I had this one sent as a sample, but it seemed floody to me so I didnt even bother taking lux. I guess I am a throw fanatic and tripples just dont do it for me.

EagleTac M2xC4__________3 XRE-R2_________2 AW 2600mAh___________ 652.3______1 sec________________________
__________________________*______________*_______________________ 603.8______30 sec_______________________
*________*___w/diffuser 1sec=546 lumens______________________________595.4______1 min________________________
__________________________________________________ _______________584.6______2 min________________________
__________________________________________________ _______________579.2______3 min________________________
__________________________________________________ _______________573.8______4 min________________________
__________________________________________________ _______________569.2______5 min________________________


----------



## rickypanecatyl (Jun 28, 2011)

^Gurthang said:


> The XRE vs. XML discussion does raise one question in my mind. Why doesn't Cree produce an XM-L emitter w/ the same surface brightness as the XR-E??? Can someone explain that to me??? Not trying to be wise-*** just curious if there is some reason that it appears that the XM-L is a lesser emitter when compared to the XR-E based on surface brightness.


 
I'm sure they would if they could. Though the XRE has the highsest surface brightness of the bunch the ones mentioned are surprisingly close. I have to wonder if that's kind of like a wall that is tough to break thru.

I love throwy lights but I also wonder what % of Cree's business goes to flashlights and I'm guessing the majority of other applications don't require throw as much so they may not care.

How does the surface brightness of incandescents compare?


----------



## tre (Jun 28, 2011)

Yes, M2XC4 (triple XRE) is about 30k lux. It is an ok thrower but not the best because the three XRE emitters are in tiny reflectors. The M3C4 single XML does out-throw it by a lot (at about 44k lux). My Lambda 3C XML (BigChelis tested more than one of those) out throws them all by a lot because the XML is driven so hard and it is in a big Rebel reflector.


----------



## rickypanecatyl (Jul 21, 2011)

jorn said:


> The xr-e has 1 amp pr square mm. The Xm-l has less amps pr mm^2. Its driven at 3 amp but it got 4 times the areal of the xr-e, so it gets 0.75 amp pr square mm when driven to max spec.


 
I think the XM-L is better than 75% as high a surface brightness as the XRE when driven at the same % of their max as the XML is more effiecient - more lumens per watt.

Back to the OP's question though, the thrunite scorpion should easily be able to outthrow your light with an R2 and 36 mm reflector and that is because it has a bigger 41ishmm reflector. Also the thrunite really does drive the XML nearly to the max where most (1) 18650 lights do not drive the XM=L's to the max.


----------



## bob4apple (Jul 21, 2011)

abinok said: _"The light I'm considering replacing has phenomenal throw. It will punch out to 150yds with ease. The sacrifice being that the spill is much harder to use. I have a flip up cover on it with some diffusion film that creates a absolutely smooth wall of light... but its an either/or proposition."_

You can have the best of both- throw and spill- if you simply cut out a circle in the middle of your diffusion film. Experiment with different size circles for best results.


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 22, 2011)

rickypanecatyl said:


> I think the XM-L is better than 75% as high a surface brightness as the XRE when driven at the same % of their max as the XML is more effiecient - more lumens per watt.
> 
> Back to the OP's question though, the thrunite scorpion should easily be able to outthrow your light with an R2 and 36 mm reflector and that is because it has a bigger 41ishmm reflector. Also the thrunite really does drive the XML nearly to the max where most (1) 18650 lights do not drive the XM=L's to the max.


 
Efficiency and surface brightness are apples and oranges.


----------



## peterharvey73 (Jul 22, 2011)

The Cree XR-E R2 emitter has die dimensions of 1mm by 1mm = 1 square mm - it has the very highest surface brightness of all the emitters.
The XP-G R5 is roughly 1.25mm by 1.25mm.
The XM-L T6 is 2mm by 2mm.
The Luminus SST-50 is 2.25mm by 2.25mm = 5 square millimeters.
The Luminus SST-90 is 3mm by 3mm = 9 square millimeters.

The the XR-E R2 has the greatest surface brightness, so given two reflectors of the *same identical size*, the XR-E will out-throw the XM-L. Right?
However, if the XM-L can be fitted with a *proportionately much larger reflector* than an XR-E, eg Eagletac M3C4, Olight M3X, and Thrunite Catapult V3, then the XM-L will out-throw the life out of the XR-E? 
Is that right?
For example, the Eagletac M3C4 XM-L, the Olight M3X XM-L, and the Thrunite Catapult V3 XM-L will out-throw the life out of XR-E lights???
Jb RRT-2 XR-E R2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-Z6FcPVvzw

Catapult XM-L: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8YwnsBExIM
Olight M3X XM-L: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASH0WXioYe8
Et M3C4 XM-L: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpyyIFWMT7c

Jb M2S SST-50: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_9g0T4oo0U
Jb RRT-3 SST-50: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWs31qgEFZA
Olight SR-90 SST-90: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha7fLDI_ozY

A Jetbeam RRT-3 with a Luminus SST-50 @ 2.25mm by 2.25mm for 1200 lumens and a 62mm head/reflector combo, will out-throw the life out of the XR-E R2, despite the XR-E's surface brighness?
Likewise, the industry-leading Olight Intimidator SR-90 with it's SST-90 emitter @ 3mm by 3mm and 2200 lumens, and the huge head diameter of 100mm, will out-throw the life out of the XR-E emitter and it's surface brightness?

Thus, the surface brightness formula only works for the tiny XR-E R2 emitter, when we are comparing two reflectors of *exactly the same size*?
A bigger emitter eg the XM-L, with less surface brightness, *but a huge reflector* *[to give a big reflector to emitter ratio],* can still out-throw the life out of the XR-E???

Put it another way.
The old discontinued Jetbeam RRT-2 was powered by a Cree XR-E R2 @ 1mm by 1mm die, has a head diameter of some 35mm.
If we placed a big XM-L @ 2mm by 2mm die [with less surface brightness], into the same Jetbeam RRT-2 with the same head diameter of 35mm, then the XM-L will be pure lateral flood, and no longitudinal throw.

If we compare the old Jetbeam RRT-2 Cree XR-E R2 with 35mm head, against the Jetbeam M1xm with XM-L and 62mm head - the M1xm with XM-L ambushes the old XR-E R2; but then we're comparing a 35mm head with a 62mm head - and this is diameter only - we have not yet accounted for the extra *depth* of the M1xm's reflector.

The newer larger size emitters lack surface brightness, but they have other ways to kill an XR-E for throw - reflector size!
However, who would want to lug around the big 100mm bezel of the SR-90, or the 62mm bezel of the Jetbeam M1xm, M2S & RRT-3 - and don't forget, these latter reflectors are extra *deep* too.

So the XR-E is great for throw - in a *compact* light.
The XM-L emitter is an even greater thrower - but it needs to be in a big light, with a proportionately bigger and deeper reflector.
In the same reflector size as the XR-E, the XM-L will flood laterally, and longitudinally throw very poorly as a consequence...


----------



## bbb74 (Jul 22, 2011)

bah just ignore this post...


----------



## PCC (Jul 22, 2011)

peterharvey73 said:


> So the XR-E is great for throw - in a *compact* light.
> The XM-L emitter is an even greater thrower - but it needs to be in a big light, with a proportionately bigger and deeper reflector.
> In the same reflector size as the XR-E, the XM-L will flood laterally, and longitudinally throw very poorly as a consequence...



Yeah, but, you're stacking the deck against the XR-E. You can get equivalent or even better throw from an XM-L, XP-G, SST-50, SST-90 by increasing the reflector size, but, at what point do you say, "this is rediculous"? I mean, if you want a crazy throwing SST-90, by your logic, you'll need a 4" reflector. At that size you may as well run an HID setup as you would probably get way more throw from this setup.

The fact of the matter is this: the XR-E will outthrow any other emitter *in the same size light* as any other emitter if both are driven at their rated maximum and using the same reflector. While it is true that you can increase the size of the reflector to negate this advantage it's also true that the bigger the light the less likely you will have it with you when you need it because a smaller light is far easier to EDC.

One advantage that bigC hinted at that the XR-E has over the other emitters mentioned in this thread is that you can overdrive the EZ1000 XR-E by a considerable margin and get away with it. Try overdriving an XP-G or XM-L at 50% more than the spec and see how long you can do this for. The XP-G typically doesn't like more than 1.8A (20% over rated max) before it turns blue and the XM-L typically doesn't like more than 4A (33% over rated max) before it starts to turn blue. Why is this? Look at the footprint of the LED. The XR-E has a larger footprint for the die size and this gives it a larger contact patch to the star or whatever you have it mounted to for better thermal transfer while the XP-G has a tiny contact patch in comparison. The XM-L has a smaller contact patch compared to the XR-E for four times the die size so its thermal performance isn't going to be all that great in comparison.

Dang, this discussion really makes me want to direct solder an EZ1000 XR-E R2 to a copper plate and drive this combination at 2A behind a crazy throwing reflector like the Lumapower 2.8" turbo head...


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 22, 2011)

Peter, if you take the larger reflectors that you are talking about for the larger emitters that give the throw you refer to and put a XR-E in that same diameter reflector the XR-E will throw further than the larger emitters. 

You don't have to talk about putting an XM-L into a too small reflector. Put it in a properly sized reflector but just put a XR-E in that same reflector...and you will get more throw.


----------



## peterharvey73 (Jul 23, 2011)

If a bigger emitter like an XM-L versus a smaller emitter like an XR-E R2, are both placed in the same size reflectors, then certainly the XR-E out-throws the XM-L.

Btw PCC, very good to learn that the smaller XR-E emitter can be overdriven harder than their maximum specifications over the bigger emitters because they have a larger footprint beneath the die.

However, in practice:
1) How do we account for the fact that the SR-90, RRT-3, M2S, M3C4, M3X, and Catapult V3 are all SST-90, SST-50 and *XM-L* emitters?
Surely the engineers couldn't have gone wrong and chosen the wrong emitter?

2) Imagine what would happen if we placed the XR-E R2 emitter into these six big lights?
How would the XR-E R2's beam compare to the current six listed above?
Would it really throw further than these six big lights?

Presently I don't understand exactly why the XR-E R2's aren't used in those six big lights. 
I am *curious. *I'd have to talk to an engineer.
However, I have a hunch the XR-E is not all that perfect, and there must be some shortcomings to the XR-E R2 - the market is flooded with the bigger emitters - and look at the light and throw the bigger emitters produce, esp in the bigger lights?


----------



## PCC (Jul 23, 2011)

Why don't they use the XR-E in those lights? Because the XR-E is yesterday's news and lumens sell lights. No one but a true flashaholic would buy a 225 lumen super thrower when you can pay slightly more for that monster 600+ lumen light. The XR-E was supposed to have been replaced with the XP-E. It doesn't help that it gives a ringy beam when used with a smooth reflector. No manufacturer will sell a light that has an LED that is overdriven significantly so anything that I have said about overdriving these LEDs is moot when it comes to a flashlight that not a custom job.


----------



## peterharvey73 (Jul 23, 2011)

Actually, I'm beginning to wonder if the XR-E can NOT out-throw the bigger emitters from the SR-90, RRT-3, Et M3C4, Catapult V3 XM-L because throw is dependent, not just on the emitter to reflector size ratio, but also on the *total lumen output*?
In other words, the greater the total lumen output, the greater the throw.
Thus, a 200 lumen XR-E will throw further than a 100 lumen XR-E, given all else is the same.

So an XR-E is handicapped by it's limited output of only say 200+ lumens.
On the otherhand, an XM-L can total output 1000 lumens!

Now, when that big XM-L powerful emitter is placed in say a *small reflector* like a Zebralight SC600, we get heavy flooding with poor throw, because the emitter has increased greatly in size, but the head/reflector size is the same compact size at some 30 mm in diameter.
However, when that big powerful XM-L emitter is placed in say a *big flashlight & reflector* like the Et M3C4 or a Catapult V3 etc, bang! 
They both throw a long long way.

Does this explain why XM-L's, SST-50's and SST-90's are used in the bigger lights?
The bigger emitters have more total lumens too - and that helps greatly in the overall throw...


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 23, 2011)

In part it's because there are already larger "turbo head" models using the XR-E or XP-E. In part it's because some people want a useful light that has a good amount of throw rather than having the ultimate thrower when the beam of light it puts on the target is so small as to not be useful in many application.

A laser is the ultimate thrower but it's of limited use. If someone wanted a thrower for search and rescue it might be more useful to have a lot of light in a larger area at 600 feet rather than a tiny spot at 800 feet.

Ultimate throw isn't a goal for most useful applications. Once a light can throw as far as we can see then the goal is to put more light at that distance.

There's nothing wrong with the XR-E. That's not why the engineers are using XM-L instead. XM-L is capable of taking more current than XR-E and therefore capable of putting out more light.


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 23, 2011)

peterharvey73 said:


> Actually, I'm beginning to wonder if the XR-E can NOT out-throw the bigger emitters from the SR-90, RRT-3, Et M3C4, Catapult V3 XM-L because throw is dependent, not just on the emitter to reflector size ratio, but also on the *total lumen output*?
> In other words, the greater the total lumen output, the greater the throw.
> Thus, a 200 lumen XR-E will throw further than a 100 lumen XR-E, given all else is the same.
> 
> ...



You are just not understanding throw. Surface brightness and reflector diameter is all throw is. Forget about lumens. That is taken care of in the measurement for surface brightness in effect. Surface brightness is the lument output a max spec divided by the emitter size. XR-E and XP-E currently win that race.


----------



## peterharvey73 (Jul 23, 2011)

So what you are saying is that, if we hypothetically put an XR-E into an SR-90, Eagletac M3C4 or Thrunite Catapult etc, the XR-E emitter will actually out-throw the original bigger emitters?
However the manufacturers have deliberately not used the XR-E emitter due to insufficient total volume/quantity of light, esp a more practical huge/wider hotspot, and more practical lateral flooding?

The only reason why I ask, is because Selfbuit's data says:
1) A Jb RRT-2 *XR-E R2* throws something like *216* meters to 0.25 lux.
2) An Eagletac M3C4 XM-L throws 394 meters to 0.25 lux.
3) A Catapult V3 XM-L throws 402 meters to 0.25 lux.
4) A SR-90 SST-90 throws 634 meters to 0.25 lux.
Selfbuilt's data says that the bigger more powerful emitters are throwing much further?


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 23, 2011)

peterharvey73 said:


> So what you are saying is that, if we hypothetically put an XR-E into an SR-90, Eagletac M3C4 or Thrunite Catapult etc, the XR-E emitter will actually out-throw the original bigger emitters?
> However the manufacturers have deliberately not used the XR-E emitter due to insufficient total volume/quantity of light, esp a more practical huge/wider hotspot, and more practical lateral flooding?
> 
> The only reason why I ask, is because Selfbuit's data says:
> ...



No, his data says that manufacturers are putting XR-E's in smaller lights than they are putting XM-L's. They don't need the same current to drive them so they can use smaller batteries and therefore be smaller.

A XM-L to be fully driven needs 3A and therefore to have reasonable runtime more and bigger batteries...a bigger light. The XM-L is a bigger emitter and to throw at all needs a big diameter reflector. 

So when you are picking your data you aren't really talking about XM-L and XR-E...you are talking about what Jetbeam did in a particular model or whoever.

The answer to your first question is yes. The XR-E will throw further than the bigger emitter. The size of the emitter has to do with how many lumens it can put out not lux. 

It might be like saying that pound for pound a 12 year old girl is stronger than you are. I climb outdoors but also at a climbing gym. You and I are stronger than a 12 year old girl but I see kids that may be able to climb better than we can until puberty hits. The ratio of her arm strength to weight is higher than ours. It's not that she is strong. She just doesn't weigh anything.

The larger emitters increased lumen output over the XR-E but didn't quite catch up with their size. Their size went up 100% lets say but their lumen increase only went up by 75%. Proportionately the XR-E is still "stronger"


----------



## peterharvey73 (Jul 23, 2011)

Your analogy of the strong 12 yo girl is a good one.
Perhaps that helps to explain why the XR-E has the most surface brightness.

Yet say the SR-90 has 634 meter of throw on Selfbuilt's tests.
Catapult V3 XM-L throws 402 meters to 0.25 lux.
An Eagletac M3C4 XM-L throws 394 meters to 0.25 lux.
By comparison, a Jb RRT-2 *XR-E R2* throws something like *216* meters to 0.25 lux.


----------



## MikeAusC (Jul 23, 2011)

Napalm said:


> Your theory is valid for de-domed LEDs with diverging or parallel beam reflectors. Don't forget that you can converge a beam too.
> 
> And once you add the micro-lens you're screwing the whole thing pretty much.
> 
> Nap.



Exactly - the optics used in an XR-E work differently to all later CREEs - the XR-E focusses its light much more tightly at 90 half brightness width. All later CREEs use lenses that give 120 deg half brightness width.

So unless you're comparing de-domed LEDs, there's no point talking about chip size - you have to compare APPARENT chip size - i.e. how big it looks through the attached lens.


----------



## jorn (Jul 23, 2011)

The deft has passed 400 000 lux with a xr-e. 
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...rst-LED-flashlight-to-break-the-400K-Lux-mark
A huge xr-e thrower with a laserbeam and a carrystrap wont sell very well. So no one want's to risk money on making one. That dont make the xm-l emitter a better trower. It's a better seller in big lights.


----------



## Napalm (Jul 23, 2011)

jorn said:


> A huge xr-e thrower with a laserbeam and a carrystrap wont sell very well. So no one want's to risk money on making one. That dont make the xm-l emitter a better trower. It's a better seller in big lights.



This is mostly an academic experiment. Yes, it's easier to focus a smaller light source with simple optics, but coin sized hotspots with no spill don't have many practical applications. And when you start spreading the beam to an useful size, it's the XM-L that delivers.

Nap.


----------



## jorn (Jul 23, 2011)

Napalm said:


> This is mostly an academic experiment. Yes, it's easier to focus a smaller light source with simple optics, but coin sized hotspots with no spill don't have many practical applications. And when you start spreading the beam to an useful size, it's the XM-L that delivers.
> 
> Nap.


 Yes the xm-l makes a more useful beam with a huge reflector, but it wont be making a more throwy beam than a xr-e. We are discussing what LED will give most throw of the xr-e vs xm-l, not what got the most useful and allaround beampattern.


----------



## Napalm (Jul 23, 2011)

jorn said:


> We are discussing what LED will give most throw of the xr-e vs xm-l, not what got the most useful and allaround beampattern.



I would be more interested in discussing what LED will give most USEFUL throw.

Nap.


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 23, 2011)

Napalm said:


> I would be more interested in discussing what LED will give most USEFUL throw.
> 
> Nap.



There really is nothing to discuss and therefore no real point to this thread 

XR-E has more throw...nothing to discuss.
XM-L is more useful in most applications where more light on the target/subject is needed.

The middle ground is when you want a directed beam in a small easy to carry light...XR-E wins here as well.

Very little to discuss however. If you want to light up the distance get a large diameter XM-L fully driven. If you want a small hand carry pointer light to identify critters on your nature walk get a XR-E.


----------



## peterharvey73 (Jul 23, 2011)

When u calculate the surface brightness, I guess the XR-E does have an advantage.
Olight SR-90, SST-90, 2200 lumens divided by 9 sq mm [3mm x 3mm] = 244 lumens per sq mm
Jetbeam RRT-3, SST-50, 1200 lumens divided by 5 sq mm [2.25mm x 2.25mm] = 240 lumens per sq mm
Eagletac M3C4, XM-L, 1000 lumens divided by 4 sq mm [2mm x 2mm] = 250 lumens per sq mm

An old Jb RRT-2 XR-E R2 @ 240 lumens divided by 1 sq mm [1mm x 1mm] = 240 lumens per sq mm.
However, this 240 lumens maybe *quite tricky*, because the three above may be all driven to their maximum amperage @ 9, 5, and 3 amps respectively???
The RRT-2 is unlikely to be driven to it's maximum amperage? [This is probably what I missed]?
*At it's maximum amperage, the XR-E may be delivering some 300 lumens per sq mm???*
Thus, if the XR-E was driven to it's max amperage, and was placed in the same 100mm reflector as an Olight SR-90, the XR-E may indeed out-throw the XM-L, SST-50 & SST-90.
Like MikeAusC says, the XR-E has *beam emittance angles* which at 90 degrees, is narrower too than the XP-G & XM-L's 125 degrees, and the MC-E's 110 degrees.

So for out-right throw, the XR-E does indeed seem to win.
However, for practical purposes, the bigger emitters are used because they throw far enough for the human eye to see, yet their hotspots are significantly larger, and their lateral spills are significantly brighter...

Special thanks to goinggear's useful youtube beam throw videos [above], and Selfbuilt's throw data [above], to understanding the science behind how emitters and throw work.
Unfortunately, Selfbuilt did not measure throw to 0.25 lux in the old days of the XR-E R2 and XP-G R5; he only recently started to measure throw roughly when XM-L's came out...


----------



## PCC (Jul 23, 2011)

peterharvey73 said:


> When u calculate the surface brightness, I guess the XR-E does have an advantage.
> Olight SR-90, SST-90, 2200 lumens divided by 9 sq mm [3mm x 3mm] = 244 lumens per sq mm
> Jetbeam RRT-3, SST-50, 1200 lumens divided by 5 sq mm [2.25mm x 2.25mm] = 240 lumens per sq mm
> Eagletac M3C4, XM-L, 1000 lumens divided by 4 sq mm [2mm x 2mm] = 250 lumens per sq mm
> ...


 
You're comparing apples to oranges here: the ratings for the SST-90, SST-50, and XM-L are manufacturer's maximum ratings while the rating for the XR-E is a manufacturer's (probably inflated) OTF rating. The XR-E R2 has been tested to produce anywhere from 300 to 310 lumens at 1.2A, the manufacturer's maximum current rating. Keep in mind that Cree did a running change to their XR-E emitters at some point and actually reduced the die size from 1mm^2 (EZ1000) to 0.9mm^2 (EZ900 - someone correct me here if I'm wrong, this is from memory). The above tests were performed on EZ1000 die emitters and the slightly smaller EZ900 emitters can't quite take the same amount of abuse as the slightly larger EZ1000s. Since Cree kept the bin rating for the emitters the same this means that, at the maximum drive current, the newer EZ900 die XR-Es are making even more lumens per square millimeter than the older versions by roughly 10%. What's the result? Roughly 300 lumens per sq mm for the EZ1000 XR-Es that can be overdriven substantially (to about 400 lumens at 2A) or 330 lumens for the newer EZ900s.

BTW, an XP-E R2 was tested as well and it made 270 lumens at 1.2A and only 327 lumens at 2A. I wonder how well the XP-E R3 compares. Both of these LEDs are using EZ900 dies.

Here's my source for this information.


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 23, 2011)

Also keep in mind if you are getting throw with an aspheric that there is another advantage (over a reflector) with the XR-E. Its beam angle of 90 degrees means that more of the emitted beam is hitting the aspheric than the reflector.

Something like an XP-G iis more efficient in a reflector since more of its beam is hitting the reflector. That's not to say that it throws further but just that there is less advantage to using a XP-G in an aspheric.


----------



## wamcneil (Jul 23, 2011)

Yes, but what if it was an African swallow AND it had a tiny jetpack? Then perhaps it could be explained...
Seriously though... from my noob perspective, the XM-L is great in a P60 or bigger reflector, but for smaller reflectors, and especially single cell lights, is there any point in the XM-L? To me, XP-G and even earlier emitters may be just as good in smaller lights if you want any throw at all.


----------



## Napalm (Jul 23, 2011)

I suggest that the throw maniacs replace their car headlights with a pair of nicely focused XR-Es and then post here how it worked for them.

Nap.


----------



## qwertyydude (Jul 24, 2011)

One thing hasn't been discussed thoroughly enough. We're talking throw and laserlike beams. We're forgetting that in aspheric setups XR-E is the only way to go. Too much light wasted out the sides with any other led design. Get an ideal aspheric in front of the XR-E and throw will definitely beat the xm-l because of that whole surface brightness issue.

I posted this before the great crash and it got some interesting replies. Thought I'd bring it up again. When it comes to all out throw aspherics are the only way to get a "laserlike" beam from a relatively compact light. And with the perfectly focused beam this light could literally project a visible led die to the clouds.

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?304093-Optical-WMD


----------



## jorn (Jul 24, 2011)

Would you like to carry your car around up mountian? I prefer a small flashlight. One with throw, and a floody headlamp. This means no lights with a carry strap. I have to carry all my stuff on my back, so I will have room for a sr90 sized light if I skip my tent or something:thumbsup: And i dont walk in 50 mph so i don't need a 1.5kg light with thousands of lumens to avoid crashing into something
You get less actual throw for ~3 times the energy consumption with the xm-l. I think 1000 lumens is overkill when outdoors and no ambient light. It can be fun, but overkill. The xm-l has ONE advantage. It puts out more lumens, It has nothing to do with how it throws.


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 24, 2011)

qwertyydude said:


> One thing hasn't been discussed thoroughly enough. We're talking throw and laserlike beams. We're forgetting that in aspheric setups XR-E is the only way to go. Too much light wasted out the sides with any other led design. Get an ideal aspheric in front of the XR-E and throw will definitely beat the xm-l because of that whole surface brightness issue.
> 
> I posted this before the great crash and it got some interesting replies. Thought I'd bring it up again. When it comes to all out throw aspherics are the only way to get a "laserlike" beam from a relatively compact light. And with the perfectly focused beam this light could literally project a visible led die to the clouds.
> 
> http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?304093-Optical-WMD



Interesting post! I followed the link. I have a similar lens (50 mm from a Pentax SLR). I don't have an adapter but after reading your post I made one from the cardboard tube in toilet paper. The sharp image on the wall in your photo is the result I got as well. I don't have a lux meter. I took it outside and it wasn't nearly as bright as my HS-802 or the 38 mm aspheric light that I made. So, I'm not sure what is different between our two setups. I was using an XR-E R2 in a small angle light that is driven at about 1.4 A.

I have a question about your HS-802 that you say measured 32k lux. Is that a stock HS-802? The tail cap reading on mine is 800mA. How did you get 1.5A?

Thanks.


----------



## Obijuan Kenobe (Jul 24, 2011)

One point. Reflectors are parabolas, right?

Don't they have, by definition, a single point of focus? Then by definition, only light emitted at that point will be effectively collimated into the spot. This means ideally, a point source is required. 

The xre is closest to a point source, so it throws better in any given parabolic reflector. That is just math and physics.

All this debate about surface brightness is linked to this principle. It is simply easier to focus a point source.

obi

...vdHTCvJJC


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 24, 2011)

Obijuan Kenobe said:


> One point. Reflectors are parabolas, right?
> 
> Don't they have, by definition, a single point of focus? Then by definition, only light emitted at that point will be effectively collimated into the spot. This means ideally, a point source is required.
> 
> ...



LED's aren't close to being a point source. All lens and reflectors have a single point of focus don't they? The XR-E has more of its beam going straight and missing the reflector entirely (as compared to a XP-G)

It is easier to focus a point source and that's why the greater the diameter of the reflector the more the "image" of the emitter from that area more closely resembles a point (since it's further away).


----------



## Walterk (Jul 24, 2011)

Obijuan Kenobe said:


> The xre is closest to a point source, so it throws better in any given parabolic reflector.


On average; yes. But there is more between theory and test results. 

To my experience you can read and think what you want to compare the led, but the only way to really know what works best is have two identical lights, and give them two different drivers and Led to test.

Ma_Sha has hands full experience with smaller lights P60 format.
I remember Techjunkies first experiences with XML calling it a blinding succes.

Edit:


gcbryan said:


> It is easier to focus a point source and that's why the greater the diameter of the reflector the more the "image" of the emitter from that area more closely resembles a point (since it's further away).


Thx for explaining me, found that part always hard to grasp.


----------



## PCC (Jul 24, 2011)

Walterk said:


> To my experience you can read and think what you want to compare the led, but the only way to really know what works best is have two identical lights, and give them two different drivers and Led to test.



How's this? I have 2 MagLites. The first is a 3D modified with an XM-L T6 behind a deep Rebel reflector driven at 2.8A while the second one is a stock 2D Rebel MagLED except that the Rebel LED has been replaced by an XP-E of unknown bin (swapped the cannister that the LED is mounted to from a new 3D Cree MagLED). The first flashlight makes 650 lumens OTF as measured on bigC's sphere while the second one makes 150 measured on the same sphere which means that it is underdriven (guessing 600mA). Anyone want to take a guess as to which of these two lights throws farther? I'll give you a hint: it's not the bigger light. The 2D has slightly more surface brightness than the nearly fully driven XM-L and the smaller spot lights up less of the environment between the target and the light source which helps my eyes see the target better. It's not a super thrower by any means, but, it's not bad and it's one of my throwiest lights despite having other lights making lots more lumens.


----------



## Obijuan Kenobe (Jul 24, 2011)

How is this? I have an xml and a xpg light engine for my Makai. I can see the difference. The xpg throws a tighter and brighter spot. The xml has a much larger but less bright spot. 

I have nothing else concrete to base this on...other than high school math. Parabolas have one focal point. The out of center portions of larger dies do not contribute much to the tight center that determines throw.

Maybe someone with a means of quantifying this in some meaningful way should do this simple demonstration.

In terms of a previous point about focal points...my point is that surface brightness matters precisely because of there being a single focal point. One point is the ideal throwing center of any reflector so bigger dies don't have a great advantage inside a reflector if you only care about throw. 

Don has said as much in his threads, and I have seen it. 


...vdHTCvJJC


----------



## easilyled (Jul 24, 2011)

To get a good idea of the relative surface brightness, divide the lumen output (at the current by which the emitter is driven) by the surface area of the die.

For setups with the same size reflectors, the highest number in the above calculation should throw the furthest, providing that the reflector used is a suitable design for catching the light reflected from the emitter and the emitter is focussed properly.

This demystifies all the guessing and speculation.


----------



## qwertyydude (Jul 24, 2011)

gcbryan said:


> Interesting post! I followed the link. I have a similar lens (50 mm from a Pentax SLR). I don't have an adapter but after reading your post I made one from the cardboard tube in toilet paper. The sharp image on the wall in your photo is the result I got as well. I don't have a lux meter. I took it outside and it wasn't nearly as bright as my HS-802 or the 38 mm aspheric light that I made. So, I'm not sure what is different between our two setups. I was using an XR-E R2 in a small angle light that is driven at about 1.4 A.
> 
> I have a question about your HS-802 that you say measured 32k lux. Is that a stock HS-802? The tail cap reading on mine is 800mA. How did you get 1.5A?
> 
> Thanks.


 
Mine is the older version, they probably changed out the driver since then. But I also customized it a little by changing out the wires leading to the led with a little thicker wire. It was previously 1.4 amps but with heavier gauge wire it went up to 1.5 amps. Also mine might be a little brighter as it's a max aperture of F1.4 vs the F1.8's you usually find. And though it may not be that much "brighter" than say your 38mm aspheric I know it'll collimate the light further. I know because I have various sized aspheric lenses and my 38mm projects bigger die sizes than the camera lens.


----------



## Napalm (Jul 24, 2011)

jorn said:


> And i dont walk in 50 mph so i don't need a 1.5kg light with thousands of lumens to avoid crashing into something


 
This becomes interesting. So, when quick reactions are needed, we want big floody lights so we can see the whole area at once (as opposite to scanning it with a coin sized beam). Not to mention that on low beam (the only one that you can legally use here in most situations) there's intentionally not much throw.

Until now I've seen mentioned how a well focused XR-E would work so much better for small EDC lights. Let's do a reality check - EDCs are mostly used as travel nightlights, for finding keyholes, watching your steps and occasional stuff like checking inside your mailbox before sticking your hand inside. These are close distance applications where throw is irrelevant and small beams even counterproductive.

There's the "but I want to be able to spot/identify critters so I don't step on them". Of course, you're checking right in front of you, would you care about the snake at 800 meters, he's harmless there? And, if you want quick reactions, look at the automobile comment - you want to see the whole area at once.

As for the mountains. Yes you can reduce weight but that's at the expense of lumens (flood) and I see that you still want some since you carry a flood light too. I don't recommend the Olight but I remember the days when there were no leds and we were carrying lanterns and D cell Maglites. We were not that inconvenienced at the time, how comes suddenly we can't carry more than 1xAA or 1xCR123 size during a planned trip in the nature? Oh, we eat too many burgers and have to carry our own weight instead.....

Nap.


----------



## Colonel Sanders (Jul 24, 2011)

All this talk about XRE, XPG, XML and not one mention of the XPC. The DEFT-EDC uses it for a good reason... https://omglumens.com/DEFT-edc.php :thumbsup:


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 24, 2011)

Napalm said:


> This becomes interesting. So, when quick reactions are needed, we want big floody lights so we can see the whole area at once (as opposite to scanning it with a coin sized beam). Not to mention that on low beam (the only one that you can legally use here in most situations) there's intentionally not much throw.
> 
> Until now I've seen mentioned how a well focused XR-E would work so much better for small EDC lights. Let's do a reality check - EDCs are mostly used as travel nightlights, for finding keyholes, watching your steps and occasional stuff like checking inside your mailbox before sticking your hand inside. These are close distance applications where throw is irrelevant and small beams even counterproductive.
> 
> ...



Is there some problem if every light isn't a flood light? Is it a problem to take advantage of improvements in technology (1 AA bright lights)? Mountaineers used to make crampons by putting nails through their boots...why?...because there were no better options at the time. No one does that now.

There are many people in this world who have many different activities and they don't all have the same requirements. Maybe you don't want to identify an animal at some distance...no problem...though some people do. Some people would like to find the end to a trail before they get on it or locate an anchor before getting on the wall.

No one is says that the more floody with a little throw light that we all use is not more appropriate for most uses most of the time. Most uses for an extreme thrower do involve entertainment. However from my reading on this and other forums most use of more than one flashlight involves entertainment as well.

Tail standing flashlights instead of simply turning the lamp or ceiling light on. Using a flashlight to take the trash can to the street when there are street lights and your non-flashaholic neighbors manage to do the same tasks without flashlights.

Needing warm tints to be easier on your eyes while walking the dogs is not necessary either. So what. People who are into flashlights like to use certain characteristics of many different kinds of lights to make their lives easier and more fun.


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 24, 2011)

Is there some problem if every light isn't a flood light? Is it a problem to take advantage of improvements in technology (1 AA bright lights)? Mountaineers used to make crampons by putting nails through their boots...why?...because there were no better options at the time. No one does that now.

There are many people in this world who have many different activities and they don't all have the same requirements. Maybe you don't want to identify an animal at some distance...no problem...though some people do. Some people would like to find the end to a trail before they get on it or locate an anchor before getting on the wall. I'm sure that most climbers who limit the weight in their packs would not resemble your remarks about eating too many hamburgers. I think it's obvious you aren't involved in any of these activities as no one carries excess weight unnecessarily. That doesn't apply to a casual walk in nature of course but why would it bother you are anyone else for someone else to have a light weight headlamp?

No one is says that the more floody with a little throw light that we all use is not more appropriate for most uses most of the time. Most uses for an extreme thrower do involve entertainment. However from my reading on this and other forums most use of more than one flashlight involves entertainment as well.

Tail standing flashlights instead of simply turning the lamp or ceiling light on. Using a flashlight to take the trash can to the street when there are street lights and your non-flashaholic neighbors manage to do the same tasks without flashlights.

Needing warm tints to be easier on your eyes while walking the dogs is not necessary either. So what. People who are into flashlights like to use certain characteristics of many different kinds of lights to make their lives easier and more fun.


----------



## ma_sha1 (Jul 24, 2011)

The current Reflector based Throw King is not XRE, it's XML: 4.2A, 3" Turbo SMO, 127K lux @ 1 meter.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...-Shorty-XML-King-of-Throw-127-000-lux-1-meter

Sure, I can probably put a XRE in there, drive it to 2 Amp and beat that record, but what's the point?
it'll turn a high lumen, long distance illuminating useful tool into a laser like toy with minimal spot arae coverage.

One thing rarely gets mentioned is that the *usefulness of the throw* is proportional to "*Lumens in The Beam*" ,
a 127K lux 1300 lumens (XML) will have a illumination coverage at least 4 times that of 127K lux XRE ~300 lumens,
which is a lot more useful.


----------



## Napalm (Jul 24, 2011)

@gcbryan:

I fully agree with you that fun is important. If you're to tell me "yesterday evening I had lots of fun illuminating stuff at 500 meters with a narrow beam lipstick size XR-E flashlight" I would have no objection. It might even give me some ideas on having similar fun too. My objection was to jorn pretending that there was a practical side to it.

Nap.


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 24, 2011)

Napalm said:


> @gcbryan:
> 
> I fully agree with you that fun is important. If you're to tell me "yesterday evening I had lots of fun illuminating stuff at 500 meters with a narrow beam lipstick size XR-E flashlight" I would have no objection. It might even give me some ideas on having similar fun too. My objection was to jorn pretending that there was a practical side to it.
> 
> Nap.


 
If you read my post you'll see that there is a practical side to it (in addition to the fun). There is a practical aspect to throw it's just that it's more common for it to be used only for fun. I have no use for "strike bezels" and personally think they are silly but for some others who are in a different situation (than I am in) there may be a practical application. I'm not doing to strike anyone with a bezel but that doesn't mean that someone out there won't ever find it useful.


----------



## shane45_1911 (Jul 24, 2011)

Napalm said:


> My objection was to jorn pretending that there was a practical side to it.


 
Ok, I honestly don't know if you are being sarcastic or not. Let's pretend you were, so I don't have to comment further about the practicality of a dedicated thrower in some situations.


----------



## Napalm (Jul 24, 2011)

Sunday fun:

You can chose from two camels. The first one can carry twice the weight. The second one can run twice as fast.

Which camel would you chose?

Nap.


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 24, 2011)

Peace out  This is going nowhere.

(The camel choice is the same as the flashlight choice...it depends on the situation)


----------



## shane45_1911 (Jul 24, 2011)

gcbryan said:


> (The camel choice is the same as the flashlight choice...it depends on the situation)


 
No it depends on throw, where throw = how far the camels can travel at the given load weights and/or speeds. 

Expecting this thread to be closed shortly.


----------



## jorn (Jul 24, 2011)

I got more floody lights than throwers, but that don't mean i don't see the use in a dedicated thrower. Even with a "coinsized" beam. Remember that little coin beam grows to be quite a pile of dollars at a distance. Its a flashlight, not a laser, so the beam will grow in size when you use it at distance. You seem to forget that. Its a thrower, and im giong to use it to light up stuff at a distance, where the beam aint coinsized. 




> There's the "but I want to be able to spot/identify critters so I don't step on them


Nope, im on the top of the foodchain, nothing to fear outdoors. Too cold for snakes or other "killers" to live here so i dont worry of the animals, they all worry and keep an eye on me. 

But i like too see where those trails ends before i walk into a dead end. My dedicated throwers don't put out a blinding bright spill. I need my nightvision too see further, and bright spill kind of works against you when you really want to see far out there. 

If you dont see any practical use to a thrower, that is smaller than another one, with 3 times the runtime, better reach and less blinding spill. well.... Remember it's a thrower and i dont need to see my toes, i want to see out there, and the spill that you love only makes my iris adust down so it lets in less light. When your surrounding got more lux than the trail 300 meters down the wally, then you wont see the trail soo good. Sometimes more can be less... even practical.


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 24, 2011)

ma_sha1 said:


> The current Reflector based Throw King is not XRE, it's XML: 4.2A, 3" Turbo SMO, 127K lux @ 1 meter.
> http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...-Shorty-XML-King-of-Throw-127-000-lux-1-meter
> 
> Sure, I can probably put a XRE in there, drive it to 2 Amp and beat that record, but what's the point?
> ...



In many cases yes but not in every case. If one throws further than the other and the object you are looking for is illuminated by the smaller beam (that throws further) and not by the larger beam then the larger beam does you no good.

As pointed out elsewhere, a thrower with a reflector (and spill) may not always be the right tool for the job (over an aspheric). All that spill between you and the object you are trying to illuminate can make it harder for you to see that object.

I have the Uniquefire HS-802 which uses a reflector and a XR-E R2. I also have a light (still using a XR-E R2) with a 38 mm aspheric and for my uses I prefer that.

The beam is more focused and only illuminates what I want to illuminate. The light is also physically smaller (and we're still taking about the same emitter). When you talk about a comparison between a XR-E driven at 1A and a XM-L driven at 3A you are now talking about bigger bodies (and weight).

Look at the Olight SR90. It is so big it comes with a shoulder strap. There are many places where having throw would be nice where no one is going to pack in a light that big. Why drive a light at 3A or 9A when 1A will do?

You could make the same arguments for the necessity of always driving a Hummer instead of a normal 4 door sedan.


----------



## peterharvey73 (Jul 24, 2011)

I just came across this similar thread but *very very scientific* from a year ago by Dr Jones, Ra, Al Combs and Saabluster.
Gcbryan and a few others had a foot in it too.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...ed-die-heatsinking&highlight=emittance+angles

Note the bottom row of *Dr Jones table* - the surface brightness.
Note that there are 2 types of XR-E's.
Original type is 1mm by 1mm with surface brightness of only 276 lumens per sq mm.
Note the newer type is 0.9mm by 0.9mm with surface brightness of 347 lumens per sq mm.
Note how SST-90 is 300 lumens/sq mm.
SST-50 273 lumens/sq mm.
XM-L wasn't around then.

Thus, the XR-E's surface brightness is only in front by a nose - even a head, but it's not that vastly in front.
Therefore, the bigger emitters can throw nearly just as well as the XR-E's, while providing a far larger hotspot size and a brighter lateral spill.
Below Dr Jones table, please look at *HKJ's beam shot photos* of the *DEFT* aspheric light that uses aspheric lenses to maximise throw from the XR-E, and compare to the beam shot of HKJ's *SR-90* SST-90.
The XR-E has an edge in throw with almost no spill, and is useful for rifle mount with a scope, but the SR-90 is far more practical in hotspot size, and lateral spill brightness.

I guess that's why the market is dominated by larger emitters for the average person.
However, the XR-E still has it's place for specialist uses, and hobbyists.
omglumens.com has been in trouble in the past due to low profit margins, but hopefully there will be lots of flashaholics who keep this company and the XR-E's afloat...







Dr Jones LED Emitters table.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...ed-die-heatsinking&highlight=emittance+angles









DEFT versus SR-90 by *HKJ* - Level 2 Supporter.
Photos taken at increased exposures by two stops, to help make all beams visible.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?319037-Olight-SR90-vs-DEFT


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 24, 2011)

The more practical difference is that you can get a small P60 (1) 18650 light for ($25 or less) that throws as far as a huge battery burner that puts out a much larger hotspot.

So from a practical viewpoint the buying decision isn't just SST-90 vs XR-E. It's (whatever a SSR90 costs...several hundred dollars) cost and size and battery consumption that have to be weighed in the decision as to whether such a light is worth it to you.


----------



## Napalm (Jul 24, 2011)

@peterharvey73:

HKJ's photos are great (thanks HKJ!). I'm disappointed in your choice though. Those that you selected to quote have enough natural illumination that you can tell the objects you're pointing the light to even without turning the flashlight on. You can tell they're trees from the beginning, as the natural illumination compensates for the lack of spill/flood from the DEFT.

How about the other set. By looking at this image alone:






_(photo taken by HKJ for his Beamshot of 17 Big Lights article)_


can you tell what is the object that the DEFT is pointed at?

@jorn:

If you have just the thrower (without any secondary flood light to augment it), does this look useful to you?

Nap.


----------



## Napalm (Jul 24, 2011)

gcbryan said:


> (The camel choice is the same as the flashlight choice...it depends on the situation)



Good answer Sir!

The fallacy is to make all kind of assumptions in order to declare your favorite camel as being the best.

You still made one assumption: that you need a camel (how many camel owners - or flashaholics like us - have you met in person?) 

Nap.


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 24, 2011)

Napalm said:


> Good answer Sir!
> 
> The fallacy is to make all kind of assumptions in order to declare your favorite camel as being the best.
> 
> ...



I made no such assumption..you asked which camel I would choose..I simply said it would depend on the situation. The situation may call for one fast camel, one beefy camel, or no camel. 

By the way, you are assuming that I am a flashaholic.


----------



## Napalm (Jul 24, 2011)

gcbryan said:


> By the way, you are assuming that I am a flashaholic.


 
I'm not assuming I'm pretty sure of it, and according to CPF it's a star flashaholic, just look at your description lol.

Nap.


----------



## jorn (Jul 25, 2011)

Napalm said:


> @jorn:
> 
> If you have just the thrower (without any secondary flood light to augment it), does this look useful to you?
> 
> Nap.


 One of my throwers are a zoomable microfire pioneer I, modded with a xr-e ( tried fist with the xm-l, dident come close to the xr-e). Got flood mode on it, very useful. Materpice pro 1 is another xr-e thrower i own. Guess what, it does got spill.. and is nothing like a laserpointer as you claim. You can make a thrower go flood with some tape or make a diffuser out of any bottle ect. But you cant make your flooders throw.
You sound like someone that have never seen a xr-e thrower with your own eyes, but yet youre a expert on the subject. lol. How many xr-e throwers do you own? You seem to "know " so mutch about them.... They do got spill. And even the spill of the masterpice pro1 is overkill with dark adapted eyes. Go read on how many lumens pepole actually use when camping, its a tread here on that subject, ull be suprised how little light is needed... So whats your point? Do you think a 3 amp huge light is more pratcical?


----------



## Napalm (Jul 25, 2011)

jorn said:


> Got flood mode on it, very useful.



jorn, thank you for pointing out yourself that useability is derived from beam profile characteristics.

nap.


----------



## Napalm (Jul 25, 2011)

Monday fun exercise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity

Quote: "This means that at 20 feet or 6 metres, a typical human eye, able to separate 1 arc minute, can resolve lines with a spacing of about 1.75mm". 

Question: what is the minimum angular size of a light beam that would be useful without recurring to additional optics (such as rifle scope or binoculars) for viewing the illuminated target?

Nap.


----------



## jorn (Jul 25, 2011)

Napalm said:


> jorn, thank you for pointing out yourself that useability is derived from beam profile characteristics.
> 
> nap.


Yes, when did i say otherwise? Spill wont help you see the stuff out there. I pointed that out too, but you clearly havent found that out for yourself yet. We are not discussing what types of beam that is generally more useful here. We are discussing xm-l vs xr-e *throwers*. I ask again, do you own many xr-e throwers? 
Do you even know what you talk about? 


> For a given lens/reflector pair, the more "lumens" you start with, the more "lux" you can produce along that direction.
> 
> nap.


Less surface brightness means less throw, leave the lumens out of it.

I dont care if you find a big powerhungy 1000 lumen beast more useful/practical in general lightning. It wont throw any further anyway. And when i don't need a huge hotspot or a huge light, i find it practical with smaller ones with better runtimes. Is it that so hard to understand? 

Ok the only thing you want is to see far. What is so great with:
-1/3 runtime? 
- Less throw?
-bigger lights?
-blinding bright spill
Does any of this makes the xm-l any better for seeing far?


----------



## Napalm (Jul 25, 2011)

jorn said:


> Ok the only thing you want is to see far. What is so great with:
> -1/3 runtime?
> - Less throw?
> -bigger lights?
> ...


 
Did you try to answer the camel question? 

Nap.


----------



## fyrstormer (Jul 25, 2011)

jorn said:


> No reflector can send out a hotspot that is more intense than the led die actually is. Some pepole find it hard to belive and might say something like: "just make a reflector to focus all those lumens better" or something.


Mathematics doesn't allow this to happen. A parabolic reflector can only perfectly focus light emitting from a single point. All emitters, LED or incandescent or anything else, are larger than a single point, so none of them can be focused perfectly. A larger emitter is less "pointlike" because it is larger, therefore a larger emitter cannot be focused as well as a smaller emitter. A larger reflector can compensate for this somewhat, but the reflector has to grow in size exponentially to compensate for the larger emitter.

There is no way to cheat mathematics. Smaller emitters will always throw better than larger emitters, though larger emitters may be able to generate more light overall.


----------



## jorn (Jul 25, 2011)

Napalm said:


> Did you try to answer the camel question?
> 
> Nap.


Thats easy, if I got a lot of luggage, I bring the strong one. If i need to go from a-b in a hurry, i'll ride the fast one. And why dident you say that one camel run out of water 3 times faster than the other camel? Could have killed me...

Different lights for different tasks.
We are discussing throw. Now it's your turn to answer then i guess?


----------



## jorn (Jul 25, 2011)

fyrstormer said:


> Mathematics doesn't allow this to happen. A parabolic reflector can only perfectly focus light emitting from a single point. All emitters, LED or incandescent or anything else, are larger than a single point, so none of them can be focused perfectly. A larger emitter is less "pointlike" because it is larger, therefore a larger emitter cannot be focused as well as a smaller emitter. A larger reflector can compensate for this somewhat, but the reflector has to grow in size exponentially to compensate for the larger emitter.
> 
> There is no way to cheat mathematics. Smaller emitters will always throw better than larger emitters, though larger emitters may be able to generate more light overall.


 Yes, and when that "point" on the small led also got more surface brightness, it will help "mirror" a brighter spot.


----------



## Napalm (Jul 25, 2011)

fyrstormer said:


> Mathematics doesn't allow this to happen. A parabolic reflector can only perfectly focus light emitting from a single point.


 
Not all reflectors are parabolic:

http://www.phoenixelectroforms.com/ellipsodial.html

nap.


----------



## Napalm (Jul 25, 2011)

jorn said:


> Thats easy, if I got a lot of luggage, I bring the strong one. If i need to go from a-b in a hurry, i'll ride the fast one. And why dident you say that one camel run out of water 3 times faster than the other camel? Could have killed me...
> 
> Different lights for different tasks.
> We are discussing throw. Now it's your turn to answer then i guess?



You're assuming lots of things, including that the fast camel can carry you at all.

Like you're assuming that the only use for "throwers" is the one you have for them.

Nap.


----------



## DM51 (Jul 25, 2011)

Napalm, you have dragged this thread so far off topic that I'm not even going to try to sort out the mess. 

It's closed.


*Edit:* I see Norm already closed it. Now you know why.


----------

