Planning an aspheric scratch build

Sedstar,

Sunnranger(you know and most of guys here don’t know) is multiple lenses system illuminator(or flashlight) based on yukon night vision device 3x42, F1.4? (there is also bigger version ).
Plenty of guys on nvforum were comparing it throw to 67 mm aspheric (X searcher and T67) and it had beaten them in terms of throw but they did not take one important variable - they were not all build under same conditions (same driver, same emitter).

So with proper variables(all systems with same driver and same emitter) when we use SR with IR emitter (4715as for example) has spot size somewhere on half way of hotspot on 50 and 67 mm lenses and visually it really seems that it is out throwing 50 mm and very close to 67 mm one because it has ultra clear die projection I never seen in my life. I can’t measure invisible light…

But I’ve also decided to build fet driven xp-g2 s4 2b SR pill to convert it into flashlight and I really expected that it will kill at least 50mm aspheric and that it will be close(performance vise) to 67mm one since nothing in classic aspherical flashlight world has clearer die projection.

Seriously guys you’ve never seen clearer die projection than in mentioned Sunnranger system but when I put it on the lux meter it was total disappointment throwing around 10-20% less than classic 50mm ones :rage: so it has smaller die projection than 50 mm one and yet throwing less…

Now something good is probably happening when we use IR light source(or even red emitter source inside such system) since it seems that it is passing that light through system much better than visible white led light.

My thought is that special NV AR coating on SR lenses is killing white led light transmission by stopping of blue or other important color that needs to be projected through lenses to give best performance…

I want to say that this system has great potential Why? 42mm lenses that should throw close to 67mm lenses size which means more throw in smaller head diameter.

Hi Luminarium !

Luminarium is from my nigh vision site… we are all “zoomie guys: dyed in the wool… we have no choice but to be zoomie guys…

i was already wanting to make a multiple lens zoomie, and while i was arguing with everyone it was possible… look at my equations… (nobody will look at or cares about equations, by the way) so while i am aguing its possible, and its desireable? at the same time, they were all oohing and aahing over the light he is talking about!

i still remember seeing it, and realizing it was a multiple lens zoomie, and one guy said “good god, i was wondering when he would notice it”…

so, while everyone is telling me it wont work, or that its not practical? at the same time,they are all using it !! (kind of ironic)

also… i had gone and was making 2, then 3… and even one 4 lens zoomie setup… trust me, “the lads” on the site? will remember me and my software to perform the math so no one had to solve equations… not one download, but, they will remember me posting about it if nothing else

i was posting pictures and a short movie? showing MY light, with the same emitter? beating larger diameter “single lens” traditional zoomies. i had the same emitter, and either the same or less current driver… it allowed the lower diameter len SYSTEM to “punch above its weight class”

DIAMETER, you run into a wall… you cant get bigger after a certain point in a gun mounted system… which therefore limits you? adding a second lens behind it? i am able to DROP the f-number and change the focal length…

by running the equations at design time? i found i could pick my f-number and focal length of the system? practically at will…

===

diameter was NOT the only way to get more moonbats thru the lens… i simply added a lens, which dropped the f-number, and changed the focal length…

i am still the only one on the night vision site? that routinely adds lenses to existing imaging lenses? to change the focal length, and drop the f-number… driving night vision performance UP…

==

i might not still have the distance record? but i should check… even if i dont? i am not sure erveryone realizes my distanceswere achieved? with the OLD oslon emitter, and the wimpy 1A drivers we were limited to at the time… my high distances? were with half powerful emitter and lower amps than what they use today…

smaller diameter lens, less amps, still keeping up with the joneses !

(whos your daddy… smak-smak-smak, whos your daddy… smak-smak-smak)

what great amusement the world gets, out of forcing the software engineer, who SHOULD be just designing prototypes out of cardboard and plastic? what hes good at?

i dont understand the amusement at making the software engineer learn metal fabricating skills, and machining, and now foundry work? because the machinists refuse to build his units that work better.

the designer? should design. when the prototype works better? then the builders should… well… build it!

i dont ask my mechanic to design me a GPS unit, do i? no… its insane.
my plumber wouldnt ask me to fix his toilet, would he? no. insane.

so, why do i have to go thru all this, for a couple years?

i dont know… but i know this…“they” finally ticked off the wrong software engineer this time… heh heh heh

I am almost complete, in a COMPLETE vertical organization strategy, a-la Henry Ford…

1) i am going to go from scrap aluminum? directly to machining stock in a single step. cost savings.
2) i am the machinist and the fabricator? i dont have to pay a machinist 25 dollars an hour for his time. cost savings.
3) i am the electronics guy, i wire and “mod” everything myself. no outside electronics work. cost savings.
4) i always WAS the designer, doing what everyone else says cant work, showing prototypes that DID work better.

when i am almost done, and i finally come home? “clear me a path”, they aint gonna know WHAT hit them, ha ha ha

i have the persistence, usually reserved for only the truly demented, lol…

some of my friends? they think i’ve gon completely mad, i tell you, lol…

all the notebooks of equations? invisible flashlights? machining equipment? now one stops over, i am pouring red hot molten aluminum in my living room? laughing like a madman?

some of them think i have gone stark raving mad…

Sedstar knows well what he is talking about…

Multiple lenses system have potential. I (and a lot of other guys along with Sedstar) have build it and I know what can be achieved…

The most crisp and sharp die projection ever but in my case it is not equally followed by candela or lux performance when I use classic flashlight emitters because of special NV coating issues I have with yukon lenses… They don’t pass certain color of white emitters so performance is lower than it should be. But with IR emitter and NV equipment is clearly seen potential of such system.

Flashlights based on camera lenses or night vision lenses? Achievable!

I think I will try again but this time with some cheap China variable lenses without AR coating.

And I am also the guy who thinks that aspheric after certain size is undesirable… It is individual but to me sweet spot is 50mm aspheric so if I can have 42mm(or even less) multiple lenses system that will throw like lets say 67 mm lenses than that system is worth a try.

If anyone will read what we are talking about it looks like this:

That should be equivalent to 67mm IR illuminators single aspheric system.

Sedstar
Could you try to form complete sentences or paragraphs please?
It’s hard to read the jumble of text…try to keep it short too, thanks.

Whoever said that only diameter matters is completely wrong.
Both diameter and focal length matter.
Saying only the F number matters is also wrong, because of what I explained with 10mm vs 1000mm
Both diameter and focal length matter independently.

Multi-lens systems are good if you want to collect as many lumens as possible, this flashlight uses a dual lens system to collect nearly 100% of the light into the lens:

The problem with multi-lens setups is that
A) any defects in the lenses get multiplied at every stage, therefore you need extremely high quality lenses or else there will be visual artifacts
B) there is a lens closer to the LED than in a single lens setup, which increases the divergence hence giving the projected spot a “less sharp” or “larger” size.

Ideally, an LED would be a point source of light and it wouldn’t matter how close the optics were to the LED. We would be able to build flashlights with 10mm lenses that would throw just as much as 1000mm lenses.

This is Mjolnir from Vinz right?

This is not multiple lens system; afaik it uses precoolimator lenses only for main beam enlargement. So it is single lens system with added precoolimator to the emitter. But maybe I am wrong?

Sunnranger is triple(or even 4) independent lens system with de-focus to over-focus ability.

Although it has multiple lenses it has clearest die projection ever. This is example with red emitter:

Or this in comparison with classic aspheric beam:

The precollimator is a tiny lens, so yes it is a multi-lens system.

You can see in your image that it is not a clear die projection at all. There is massive red spill around the image, obviously caused by all those stages.
A “clear die projection” would not have that massive red corona round it.

I saw plenty of aspheric beam and used almost every commercial available aspherical flashlights in a world and I can say that Sunnranger has the clearest die projection…

You can’t avoid little reflection from emitter.

This is sunnranger with white emitter:

Although camera can’t catch all sharpness you can see with your eye it should be clear as day to anyone who have dealt with aspherical flashlights that this is the cleareast die projection ever (far better than lets say B158 which also has very nice beam projection).

For me since I also use precoolimators in my aspherical builds; precoolimator is just a way to enlarge main beam projection without lux loss so I never thought about it as dual lens system although technically as U said it really is dual lens system (precoolimator + main lenses).

In sunnranger you can also add precoolimator to emitter and then you would have 4-5 lens system.

The large circle of light is not from “reflection from the emitter” it is caused by the large amount of optical stages, and refraction between the stages.

As I said before, these multi-optic systems give more lumens but also increases the size of the projection.
A single optical stage would not cause that circle of spill light, and would create a smaller projection while collecting less lumens.

If you look at a high quality single-lens projection of a die you will see that it is just as clear as the sunnranger.

Unfortunately I can’t find any specs or product page for the sunnranger?

the sunranger build…

it started life as a regular zoomie. crelant something rings a bell??

someone tried a night vision imaging lens in place of a regular zoomie lens on it? and it kicked @$$ on accident.

they had to fabricate it up at that point. it was just on a lark? next thing you know, it was the “best build” for an infrared illuminator for a while.

since we use infrared emitters for our night vision zoomies, and since it was a night vision camera lens it worked out very well. (the coatings would have been optimized for night vision infrared, and when used with an infrared emitter, well, things lined up well)

PS - should i be watching my spelling as well as my grammar and punctuation? lol…

Yeah, punctuation and grammar helps a lot, especially when there’s so much text.

QUOTE
As I said before, these multi-optic systems give more lumens but also increases the size of the projection.
A single optical stage would not cause that circle of spill light, and would create a smaller projection while collecting less lumens.
ENDQUOTE

i might have to throw a flag on the play.

size of the emitter projected? is purely a function of two things… actual emitter size, and the focal length of the lens.

it doesnt matter if you use one or 9 lenses? the overall focal length of the single or compound lens, will determine the emitter projected size… now, THAT STATED? i do know what you meant by that statement…

QUOTE
it is caused by the large amount of optical stages, and refraction between the stages.
ENDQUOTE

eh?

When you have multiple optic stages vs single stage, (assuming the final lens is at the same distance) that means the other optical stages are closer to the LED.
Since they are closer, the focal length is shorter, which means the delta angle is bigger and results in a larger die projection.

Of course if you have the closest lens at the same distance at the single lens then the focal distance is the same and the size would be the same, but then there isn’t really a point to the multi-lens system because it would take up more space without increasing the light captured.
(Assuming same diameter)

PS- there is a quote button at the bottom right

The main point of multi-stage optics is to have the system collect more of the light from the LED without increasing the lens diameter to gigantic sizes.
It’s easier to move a lens closer to the LED than to make a giant diameter lens in order to capture more degrees of light.

It’s easier to move a lens closer to the LED than to make a giant diameter lens in order to capture more degrees of light.

oh, no! we have violated Coghlan’s law of absolute throw!

we made something better, without increasing diameter!

snicker

now… mind you, i am impressed you know whats going on with dual lenses. thats a rarity in the flashlight world.

do you know how to calculate the focal length of a dual lens setup? optically,the 2 lenses being used are thought to be combined into one compound lens, with one overall focal length, and are treated as a single lens…

But the point of doing that is not throw, it is increasing optical efficiency by capturing more lumens…
It has more lumens, but projects them over a larger area, therefore making a bigger spot with more lumens, and not more throw.

With a multi lens setup you use the focal distance of the closest lens, every optical stage after that continues to increase the divergence.
You can use any ray tracer to see how adding stages affects the divergence.
Often with multi-stage optics you need a bunch of custom made precision pieces and there’s a ton of variables, I much prefer working with single stage optics to not have to deal with error/imperfections getting multiplied at each stage, and lower production cost.

ho… not so fast… slow down.

your right, but, you are making an assumption that doesnt necessarily need be true.

1) lets use as an example a single lens setup, one lens with focal length of 100mm
2) a lot of light as we know, wont hit the lens, its lost to the sides before it hits the lens 100mm away
3) what to do? well, we will use two lenses. one of them, the one with shorter focal length? will be closer to the lens, and will collect more light. it will focus it a little,keeping more light now to hit the bigger lens.
4) it is true, that if the same 100mm front lens is kept, the new compound lens? will indeed have less than 100mm combined focal length, and so the emitter projected will be bigger because of the lower focal length of this new compound lens. and yes, it will be brighter because that first lens collected light that would have been otherwise lost, so, efficiency is up and the bigger projected emitter is now brighter.
5) the assumption you are guilty of making? who said we will KEEP the original front 100mm lens?

to wit…

6) we will replace the single 100mm FL big lens? with 2 lenses, true… but two different lenses! we WANT the projected emitter size of the 100mm FL single lens? so, we obviously WANTED that size of emitter projection, right?
7)why couldnt we simply pick 2 lenses… such that theres a smaller lens with shorter FL near the emitter, giving us the efficiency we want…
8) we simply pick the correct new front lens? of a focal length that those 2 combine to produce a resultant compound lens… that is 100mm focal length in total!
9) we get a free lunch here…the rear lens collects more light earlier, we have the higher efficiency we like… if it combines with a front lens that the compound lens is 100mm FL overall? we get the same size projected emitter! and its still brighter!

i know, how hard would that be? easy… i found the proper equation(s) to predict it, ha ha… and i can prove it.

you dont poop your pants over a little algebra, do you? go on… dare me.

No, the divergence of the beam depends on the LED distance from the first optic.
Once the light hits that optic then the divergence can only get larger, not smaller.
You can ignore all the other stages, because the first stage close to the LED will already cause more divergence than a large 100mm lens farther away.

Here is an extremely exaggerated example:


In order to simulate a non-point-source of light, the rays are coming from a few mm above y=0, representing light coming from some place that is not the center of the LED.
The closer the first optic is to the LED, the more divergence there will be.



the green line would represent a point source of light right at the focal point, which results in perfect collimation.
the red lines represent the minimum and maximum angles of light coming from the LED.
Hopefully you can see why a long focal distance is important.

PS- you’re right, you can use math to figure this out, it’s just a bit of trig.