This is why multiple emitters are used instead of one, to increase
efficiency at high currents.
Problem the head size of 14500 host for put a triple, Donāt know if there are lens/mcpcb smaller than 20mm
If you use this lens size and also need to increase head diameter,yes there is no reason for do that.
I just launch idea
Efficiency, as measured in lumens per Watt, is usually higher with more LEDs. Like, at a given power level it may produce 5% more lumens or 10% or even 50%ā¦ and the greatest gains happen at the highest power levels. At low power, thereās very little difference.
Efficiency, as measured in candelas per Watt, is usually higher with just one LED. That is, assuming the overall diameter of the host remains the same. Take the FW3A vs FW1A as an example. The single-emitter version is about 500% as efficient, illuminating its target about 5X as bright at the same power level.
So youāre both rightā¦ youāre just talking about different things.
In the case of a 14500 version of the FW3A or FW1A, the topic of efficiency boils down to this: At a given power level, would you rather have a ~10% increase in lumens or a ~500% increase in candelas?
Basically, do you want an extreme flooder at ~2 cd/lm or a balanced beam at ~10 cd/lm?
Great explain ToyKeeper thanks.
Anyway yes Iām interested on mini FW1A if will be relase with AA compatibily, High CRI very warm option,small size and price.
Also an Headlamp version with these specs and ramping ui would be greatā¦
Iām pretty sure it throws farther than 92.5 millimeters.
(thatās the length of the light)
Anyway, the FW3A XP-L HI gets about 4.4 cd/lm, and the FW1A XP-L HI gets about 23 cd/lm. Roughly 5X as many candelas at the same power level.
However, the FW3A can make about 2.3 or 2.5 times as many lumens. So on turbo, the difference in candelas is a factor of 2 (ish) instead of a factor of 5. But it uses like three times as much power to get half as many candelas.
Thereās no question that throwy lights are more efficient at producing a bright hotspot. Thatās the whole point of a thrower.
For me though, itās not about efficiencyā¦ itās about having the right balance. And I think the optimal balance for a small EDC-style light is roughly 5 to 15 cd/lm. This provides a useful mix of flood and throw for common daily tasks.
A 14500 compact triple would end up with likeā¦ 2 cd/lm. And a single-emitter version would be closer to 10 or 12 cd/lm. So Iāll take the single-emitter version.
If it were the other way around though, like if we were using a really tiny LED which produced a ridiculous amount of throw, and the numbers were 10 cd/lm for a triple or 50 cd/lm for a single, Iād choose the triple. Because it hits the balance Iām looking for.
Seems to me it should get closer to 25mm shorter. The depth of the reflector would be shorter. Although the ability to take a button top might be better. And the inner sleeve should not be carried over so,?
I just realized FW1A is by lumintop and they already have the GT Micro for those who like single emitters with high throw efficiency. I guess this one would make sense for a triple. It would be the first 14500 triple on the market.
It is no longer sold, but this is/was a 14500 on the market!
And made by a BLF member: vestureofblood (also know as Matt Smith from AdventureSportFlashlights )
I disagree that thereās no point in making a triple. Some people use their lights in doors and prefer floody lights. Also there are SO MANY single emitter 14500 out there including Lumintopās own GT Micro, Tool AA, E05C, ED15, L1A, EDC05, Duke, Prince Mini, D10; I donāt see much reason to make another single emitter 14500 to compete with their already huge selection. A triple on the other hand would be unique. For me, I would be more interested to see a 4x or 9x E21A mule. I love the 16x E21A mule in the KR4 so much.