If you need to go this route maybe you could sell the extras on ebay or something. :)
The Nightsword project
- Thread starter get-lit
- Start date
If you need to go this route maybe you could sell the extras on ebay or something. :)
get-lit
Flashlight Enthusiast
Grr, the "super short" arc lamp version is a no-go, so 100 MCP ain't going to happen. The gap would affect voltage, pressure, and stability. Still in the 60-75MCP range. I'm at least pushing for a marginally smaller gap that would give a 15% boost. Of course a 280W (driven@300W) 1mm gap P-VIP would be in 150 MCP range, but as discussed before, I'm going for beam power... The 75 MCP beam is still 73% more powerful overall than the 150 MCP beam when the 75MCP beam is 3 times the diameter and with 3.6 times the light within it.
Onestep
Newly Enlightened
Can you remind me where this puts the NS as compared to the standard SX-16 with the Enhanced reflector option it comparatively wide 4 degree minimum focus?
I'm not getting what the above pic is about?
I'm not getting what the above pic is about?
get-lit
Flashlight Enthusiast
It's difficult to quantify exactly because I'm not sure which 1600W lamp the SX-16 uses. Spec sheets for the Enhanced SX-16 says 50 MCP nominal and 40 MCP minimal, but I'm having a difficult time achieving much for it in the beam calculator. The standard SX-16 has 30-40 MCP and the beam calculator puts it at 35 MCP. The only performance difference between the standard SX-16 and the enhanced SX-16 is the higher reflectance reflector which would give it a 20% boost, so the enhanced should really be more like 42 MCP.
The exact power of the Nightsword is also difficult to quantify at this point because I'm not sure if I'll be able to get that 15% gain with a semi-shortened arc or not. Probably will though. I'm also not sure as of yet if I can maximize the reflectance of the retro-reflector without burning up the enhanced coating being so close to the lamp. Also, can I get the lens AR coated for higher light transmittance.
Worst case scenario for the Nightsword would put it at 60MCP and 24269 Net Luminance (Beam Power), versus the best case scenario for the Enhanced SX-16 at 50MCP (doubtful) and 21124 Net Luminance (Beam Power). Still a 15% gain with these extreme scenarios.
Best case scenario for the Nightsword would be if the retro-reflector could sustain an enhanced coating, AR coated lens, and a semi-shortened arc, resulting in 80 MCP and 35626 Net Luminance (Beam Power). In which case, would be a 68% gain in beam power compared to the unlikely best case scenario of the Enhanced SX-16.
Most probable scenario would be the Nightsword not having enhanced coating on the retro-reflector, but having AR coated lens, and a semi-shortened arc, resulting in 75 MCP and 32398 Net Luminance (Beam Power), and the Enhanced SX-16 having 42 MCP and 17768 Net Luminance (Beam Power), resulting in an 82% gain for the Nightsword.
If it weren't for the highly optimized optic design of the Nightsword, it would have less power than the SX-16 because the Mercury lamp needed to enable the Nightsword to be portable has less peak luminance within the luminous area than the SX-16 Xenon lamp. If I did not mind the Nightsword weighing at least 40 lbs and consuming a lot more power, I could use a 1600W Xenon lamp and get 140 MCP and 60428 Net Luminance. That's 3.4 times the performance of the Enhanced SX-16 using the same exact lamp resulting solely from the highly optimized optics of the Nightsword. Of course that's not the lamp I'm going with since this is to be a hand-held portable light, so again looking to be more like 75 MCP and 32398 Net Luminance.
EDIT: Keep in mind, the downside of the highly optimized optics is that the hole in the flood mode will be even worse than the SX-16.
Also not sure about the last pic.
The exact power of the Nightsword is also difficult to quantify at this point because I'm not sure if I'll be able to get that 15% gain with a semi-shortened arc or not. Probably will though. I'm also not sure as of yet if I can maximize the reflectance of the retro-reflector without burning up the enhanced coating being so close to the lamp. Also, can I get the lens AR coated for higher light transmittance.
Worst case scenario for the Nightsword would put it at 60MCP and 24269 Net Luminance (Beam Power), versus the best case scenario for the Enhanced SX-16 at 50MCP (doubtful) and 21124 Net Luminance (Beam Power). Still a 15% gain with these extreme scenarios.
Best case scenario for the Nightsword would be if the retro-reflector could sustain an enhanced coating, AR coated lens, and a semi-shortened arc, resulting in 80 MCP and 35626 Net Luminance (Beam Power). In which case, would be a 68% gain in beam power compared to the unlikely best case scenario of the Enhanced SX-16.
Most probable scenario would be the Nightsword not having enhanced coating on the retro-reflector, but having AR coated lens, and a semi-shortened arc, resulting in 75 MCP and 32398 Net Luminance (Beam Power), and the Enhanced SX-16 having 42 MCP and 17768 Net Luminance (Beam Power), resulting in an 82% gain for the Nightsword.
If it weren't for the highly optimized optic design of the Nightsword, it would have less power than the SX-16 because the Mercury lamp needed to enable the Nightsword to be portable has less peak luminance within the luminous area than the SX-16 Xenon lamp. If I did not mind the Nightsword weighing at least 40 lbs and consuming a lot more power, I could use a 1600W Xenon lamp and get 140 MCP and 60428 Net Luminance. That's 3.4 times the performance of the Enhanced SX-16 using the same exact lamp resulting solely from the highly optimized optics of the Nightsword. Of course that's not the lamp I'm going with since this is to be a hand-held portable light, so again looking to be more like 75 MCP and 32398 Net Luminance.
EDIT: Keep in mind, the downside of the highly optimized optics is that the hole in the flood mode will be even worse than the SX-16.
Also not sure about the last pic.
Last edited:
The_Driver
Flashlight Enthusiast
He is probably trying to say that it's still a long way to go before the nightsword is completed.
OIC now - "down the road". I didn't have my glasses by the PC so I could not tell the little pic "down the road" was the NS.
Thanks Get Lit for all the very detailed analyses. Very easy to follow as always. All-in-all, a probable 82% gain over the enhanced NightSun is quite fantastic!
Thanks Get Lit for all the very detailed analyses. Very easy to follow as always. All-in-all, a probable 82% gain over the enhanced NightSun is quite fantastic!
get-lit
Flashlight Enthusiast
Ah Driver, I think you're right.
BTW the enhanced coating on the retro-reflector, AR coated lens, and a semi-shortened arc all do not impact the time on this because they don't affect the design. The one thing holding this up at this point is the touch panel, because I can't have the mold made for the housing until this is finalized. I have sample units on the way but my hopes aren't high for them. Also still awaiting a response from another company that advertises they do have the size and thickness needed.
BTW the enhanced coating on the retro-reflector, AR coated lens, and a semi-shortened arc all do not impact the time on this because they don't affect the design. The one thing holding this up at this point is the touch panel, because I can't have the mold made for the housing until this is finalized. I have sample units on the way but my hopes aren't high for them. Also still awaiting a response from another company that advertises they do have the size and thickness needed.
Onestep
Newly Enlightened
Oh BVH......
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...ade-in-Japan&p=4387078&viewfull=1#post4387078 POST #17
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...ade-in-Japan&p=4387078&viewfull=1#post4387078 POST #17
Onestep
Newly Enlightened
get-lit please keep up the good fight and keep teaching all of us that you can.
Are you set on having a touch screen for the controls? You could do something really nifty like remote Bluetooth / smartphone controls and monitoring.
Are you set on having a touch screen for the controls? You could do something really nifty like remote Bluetooth / smartphone controls and monitoring.
get-lit
Flashlight Enthusiast
Actually Onestep, Bluetooth/Smartphone controls/monitoring is completely possible. There are wireless boards that could be added, but there are only so many "com" pins which limits the number of connectivity interfaces... whether it be touch screen & OLED display, remote serial control, and wireless etc. If a suitable touch panel is not available, I could do wireless but not both.
Funny that pic can be interpreted as either "Down the Road" or "On the Horizon".
Funny that pic can be interpreted as either "Down the Road" or "On the Horizon".
get-lit
Flashlight Enthusiast
More research is being put into just how short the lamp arc can be. We are now zeroing in on a gap that is shorter than last mentioned. Again the shorter arc requires more amperage. The higher amperage is what causes the lamp to expire faster. The bigger issue here is that as the additional amperage for the shorter arc gap exceeds what the matching ballast is capable of providing, undercurrent occurs resulting in improper internal pressure and stability.
However, the ballast has reserve amperage to assist in speeding up the power ramp-up when igniting the lamp. If the arc is made to match that reserve amperage for use under full power, the system will be fully optimized for maximum capability. I'm having two test lamps made which will then be tested to achieve the maximum current while lasting at least 200 hours. Probably will be in the ballpark of 500 hours.
As of now, all with enhanced primary reflector:
Standard Lamp with AR Coated lens: 65 MCP and 27612 NL (net luminance)
New Short arc Lamp with AR Coated lens: 86 MCP and 36393 NL
New Short arc Lamp with AR Coated lens and enhanced retro-reflector: 91 MCP 39437 NL
However, the ballast has reserve amperage to assist in speeding up the power ramp-up when igniting the lamp. If the arc is made to match that reserve amperage for use under full power, the system will be fully optimized for maximum capability. I'm having two test lamps made which will then be tested to achieve the maximum current while lasting at least 200 hours. Probably will be in the ballpark of 500 hours.
As of now, all with enhanced primary reflector:
Standard Lamp with AR Coated lens: 65 MCP and 27612 NL (net luminance)
New Short arc Lamp with AR Coated lens: 86 MCP and 36393 NL
New Short arc Lamp with AR Coated lens and enhanced retro-reflector: 91 MCP 39437 NL
Last edited:
When you talk about "lamp life", does this mean to a point where lamp output is 80% of what is was when new? Or does the lamp have to be replaced at this time on the clock? If the latter, how much output is taking place at the time of replacement? Is there a scale of decreasing performance?
If you require the ballast to output its' "boost" current full-time, how will that affect heat and life of the ballast?
I really, really enjoy this technical talk!!
Those numbers look really impressive.
If you require the ballast to output its' "boost" current full-time, how will that affect heat and life of the ballast?
I really, really enjoy this technical talk!!
Those numbers look really impressive.
get-lit
Flashlight Enthusiast
End of lamp life in this case is 50% reduction in output or 50% failure to ignite.
50% reduction in output is when the deposits from electrode erosion attach to the envelope and block luminance by 50%.
50% failure to ignite is typically when the electrodes have eroded too far apart to sustain an arc upon ignition. This will not likely be the end of lamp life case for a shortened arc gap because it begins at an already shorter arc distance. As a result, 50% reduction in output would more likely be reached before the electrodes erode to the point of 50% failure to ignite.
No, no affect on the ballast. It's not a "boost" current, it's a fully usable "reserve" current. Like having a reserve gas tank, it never hurts to put it to use.
50% reduction in output is when the deposits from electrode erosion attach to the envelope and block luminance by 50%.
50% failure to ignite is typically when the electrodes have eroded too far apart to sustain an arc upon ignition. This will not likely be the end of lamp life case for a shortened arc gap because it begins at an already shorter arc distance. As a result, 50% reduction in output would more likely be reached before the electrodes erode to the point of 50% failure to ignite.
No, no affect on the ballast. It's not a "boost" current, it's a fully usable "reserve" current. Like having a reserve gas tank, it never hurts to put it to use.
OK, good lamp life info. So if it ends up rated for 300 hours, it is a fair guess to say that it will be outputting 75% at 150 hours. Is it linear?
get-lit
Flashlight Enthusiast
Probably will be rated at 500 hours, and yes linear output reduction.
So about 10% reduction per 100 hours. I think that's reasonable for this powerhouse of a light. If you're willing to buy the light, you should be willing to buy lamps to keep it in top performance. And for many of us, usage won't be huge so lamps won't be that big of an expense.
get-lit
Flashlight Enthusiast
Plus there's always the 1000 hour lamp for the more practical applications.
The cloud photos do look strange. Clouds are not dense "walls" to stop light. The hotspot is usually not one similar to a laser on a wall in a photo. Just saying. It's usually a brighter white, but at such distance, it wouldn't be a camera blinding spot on a cloud in any camera I've seen.
What I am curious about really, is what light body did you use to create a chassis for the prototype host in the beginning to hold everything in alignment to get the beam shots? ...The pictures of the prototype light that threw the original beam?
What I am curious about really, is what light body did you use to create a chassis for the prototype host in the beginning to hold everything in alignment to get the beam shots? ...The pictures of the prototype light that threw the original beam?
