The XHP70 measured 6.1Vf at 5.02A before. So it should be ~6.5Vf at 5.43A.
Estimating the XP-L to be around 3.6Vf at 3.9A x 3 in the triple.
Wouldn’t that be closer to 35W vs 42W? At any rate, the XHP70 looks to be more efficient. Push it to 12A and it is impressive!
Hmm, you have a point. I made a mistake and used a Vf that was very likely too low for the XP-L emitters when I did that calculation.
It would make sense for the XHP70 to be more efficient than 3x XP-L if we assume that it has 33% more die area to take advantage of.
Do you guys think this reflector will work with the XHP70 to have a nice beam profile ?
It is 82mm wide and 50mm deep
It looks to shallow but the hybrid style with light orange peel at the outer might do well to smooth the beam. It probably wouldn’t be throwy at all, do you know what it’s designed to be used with?
Pulling numbers from other posts of yours, I found at one point, when running triple V6 2Cs at 12.7A off of a VTC5 you saw 4040lm. And at 7.3A from purple efest 18350s through an MTG2 you saw 3485lm.
So if I may, I’m going to make a table of your published X6 builds to help me keep things straight…
6V LED — ~4.6Wh available @ 5A from 2*Purple Efest 18350 (down to 6V total)
XHP70 - 3298lm - 5.43A @ 6.75V - 36.7W - 90lm/W - 7.5 min runtime - 412 lm*hrs
MTG2 - 3485lm - 7.3A @ 7.1V 51.8W 67lm/W - 5.3 min runtime - 308 lm*hrs
3V LED — ~8Wh available @ 12A from 1* VTC5 (down to 3V)
Triple V6 2C XP-L - 4040lm - 12.7A @ 3.8V - 48.3W - 84lm/W - 9.9 min runtime - 667lm*hrs
Triple V5 2D XP-L - 3340lm - 11.37A @ 3.65V - 41.5W - 80lm/W - 11.6 min runtime - 646lm*hrs
0:) I have problems… I know. But lm*hrs are a real unit! I swear! The unicorns told me…
I’ve also got a Quad XP-G2 S3 3C Eagle Eye X6 that does 2080 at start from a LG HE2 delivering 12.16A.
The Quad I built for Nitro uses de-domed XP-L V5 2D and pulls 14.49A for 3581 lumens at start.
I no longer have the MT-G2 up and running. Ixnayed it in favor of the triple XP-L.
I write all these down when I build them and then subsequently test them, but sometimes I lose myself with the notes. I should be organized enough to do spreadsheets but, alas, I am not. I DO have one, but it’s been forgotten for months. lol
Currently, I have 3 X6’s that I rotate EDC. The XHP70, Quad XP-G2 (which will soon become XP-L when I get the copper sink from Nitro) and Triple XP-L. To date, the Triple is still my favorite and the one that seems to get picked out of order in the rotation. 
Edit: By the way, the run time thing is theoretical. It would last that long IF the cell could supply top current til it died. Of course we know that isn’t the case. The Triple XP-L V6 2C is in California doing bike duty in the mountains and runs for 30-60 minutes with cell left at the end. He only uses it on Turbo on the downhill run home.
I am aware of the theoretical nature of the values I posted. I believe the relative differences though would translate to reality though.
Now that reminds me… I was thinking, among all the data we have collected and continue to develop, one thing I’d like to see is “real world” battery testing. Lets take the most popular cells, and test them all DD on the most common emitters. It’d be nice to see the product of each LED’s Vf curve and batteries’ V vs Q curve plotted. I’d love to see how much more a Pani 3400 outlasts a 20R compared to their capacity ratio.
And time consuming. And, well, organised. Ouch!
Do you mean like HKJs tests or something else?
Yes. Kinda.
In it’s simplest form. It’d be a test of a the top ten 18650s running an XM-L2 direct drive, and generating two graphs. One would be lux/lumens vs time and the other voltage/amps vs time.
I’d do it myself but I don’t have the equipment for data logging, and little time to do it manually.
Someone more skilled in these things than myself might be able to use data similar to HKJ’s measurements to quantify the performance of a cell. The performance of the emitters we use seems very easy to match to a Bezier curve. If both hurdles were dealt with then a simple application could generate what you want as simulations and also take into account an arbitrary amount of resistance at the same time (eg spring resistance / whole light resistance).
Unfortunately while the LED part appears easy, I do not know how to quantify the performance of the cells in the appropriate way.
Hmm. For most of the cells in question HKJ has a “lowest draw” graph (0.2A) and what you might call a “highest properly-behaving” graph with several graphs in between. Sometimes there is an additional outlier graph with significantly worse performance. I’m looking at HKJ’s Efest IMR18650 2500mAh (Purple) 2014 results right now as a case in point. Ugh, again: beyond my skills.
That would take careful plotting and a nice chart to show the curve and peak output/current involved. A cell like the 20R will deliver a lot more initially, and of course die faster because of it. With more than 50% more capacity, the BD wouldn’t start at the same power level and of course would die a much slower death. It would be interesting to see exactly where the trade-offs were though. Just how much more output does the hotter cell have and where do the lines cross?
For me, out here in the country, the initial performance is of high value. An example would be last night. I was out taking a few beamshots when somebody drove down the country road shooting out the window of their pick-up. I put a fairly healthy amount of light on em and tracked em from 300+ yds for about a half mile so they’d know without a doubt they had been observed. I got a description of the vehicle, but my camera couldn’t get the plate number at the distances involved. That initial burst of output though is what I typically rely on. For the critturs and such we have out here, be it coyotes with 4 or 2 legs.
It is not shallow it is just the pics, it is even deeper than the COURUI reflector that is 70.5mm wide x 47mm deep , and it was in an old Osram flashlight for incandescent bulb and it is easy to mod for led use
It looks too shallow for how wide it is. The incans use a bowl shape instead of a parabola, not usually well adapted to LED use with the possible exception of the big MT-G2. I don’t know how it’d work with the XHP70, but it might be worth a shot…
I know you ment specifically for this reflector, and since some specialty flood reflectors aren’t actually paraboloid in nature you may be right here. But I just want to clarify this point because I know some people are prone to getting confused when it comes to picking reflectors and the actual differences between reflectors intended for incans vs ones intended for led use.
—
Ultimately there’s really no geometric difference between a paraboloid reflector intended for incan use vs one designed with an led in mind.
You’ll find incans designed for throw will also use a paraboloid reflector, the only difference is that the light emitting “surface” of an incan bulb is a thin filament suspended essentially in mid air and not a flat surface that by necessity of heatsinking is best placed at the end of the reflector. The filament is also emitting light in all directions vs an led which only emits light over a 180 degree area (at best).
Because of these two factors an incan bulb can take advantage of a parabolic reflector that has it’s focal point further towards the front of the light, this automatically makes the base of the reflector look more bowl shaped. At the same time it acts something like a recoil reflector by also catching and projecting any light that gets emitted backwards from the filament.
For LED reflectors we are simply cutting off or flattening out the useless bowl end of the paraboloid, this is usually done right at the focal plane of the parabola since leds don’t emit light behind themselves.
Simply taking a reflector designed for incan use and placing an led at the base of the bowl will not project a good beam, since the led would be badly out of focus.
However, raising that emitter on a pedestal to the center of where the incan bulb filament would have been (the focal point of the parabola) will project a perfect hotspot.
As would turning down the end of the incan reflector past the focal plane or course.
It’s all about getting the light emitting object as close as possible to the focal point of the reflector, or in the case of a quad die emitter…very slightly out of focus
Here’s some quick examples I made up, since I’m just in the process of fiddling with all things reflectors in 3d software. 
Both of these reflectors are based of a single complete paraboloid surface, the only thing different is how the end of the reflector past the focal point is treated.
Below is what these two reflectors would look like in 3d, again absolutely identical except what goes on past the focal plane. Look remarkably different don’t they?
Shows how an incan and led specific reflector can look very different, have a different perceived depth and one may look more “bowl” like than the other but are in fact absolutely identical geometrically and therefore also identical in how they project a beam.
thank you LinusHofmann nice info , well a while ago i modded a plastic host to be my 1st thrower and i did what LinusHofmann explained
there you will see the incan reflector i modded
And yes DBCstm it seems shallow for how wide it is but it is fun to try, and while i am waiting to the XHP70 to be available ( please hurry up HANK :* ) i will try it with an MK-R i just received from FT
Very impressive output increases!
I wonder what the Cree XHP70 beam pattern would look like if it had a lens over it like this OSRAM?
http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/LE%20UW%20E3B-PZQZ-4C8F/475-1295-ND/1739225
Working on fine tuning, but I just stuck the XHP70 in an old Solarforce Skyline I. The super deep reflector really gives this bad boy a tight hotspot! :bigsmile:
OH, brace yourselves….The SinkPAD Aluminum DTP MK-R star is $1.00 apiece with a $45.00 minimum. On hand and ready to go. AND, they will have copper MK-R stars by next week or so. $2.50 each at minimum, $75. Price break at 300. The minimum is about 40 stars. Cool beans eh?