XHP35

What makes you think there is any serious difference between XP-L V6 And XM-L2 U4?

That’s what it looks like to me. But, if you look at the photo Hank gave, XPL High Intensity beats XHP35 High Intensity overall, but not by much.

Look at Hank’s photo above. :bigsmile:

The u4 is at 1200lm at 3A? Xpl at 1000lm at 3A? I’m still in the process of learning! :)So if I sound stupid it’s most likely because I am still not learned! :wink:

:) Alright things now get massively complicated (HI, HD, same die different packages, etc). I meant that the brightness of the XP-L HD V6 is almost the same with XM-L2 U4.

For the die size and output and the price not to mention the voltage needed I think the xpl is the winner here heehee

These are the official specs by CREE. Keep in mind the U4 should be 7% over the U3, so then the U4 is almost the same as V6. The is no reson to believe XP-L HD is an inferior LED.

Time to make an UF-1405 'longy' ?

Hopefully it is at least a 6V/12V LED like the other XHPs. It looks like a single die though, so it may not be configurable as such. A 11V+ vF LED isn't very useful for most of our lights, since you'd either need 3S cells or a boost driver with 1S or 2S cells.

Am I the only one who thinks, that Cree should focus on 3,xV LEDs?
I mean… 11V for sub 600 Lumens?
That’s 3-4 LiIons, so it will be a big light with little output.

Sure, Cree doesn’t make it’s LEDs mainly for Flashlights - but it’s a not so small part of it.

I presume they had in mind automotive application mostly, because more and more lights that are built in cars are LED based.

Look again. The sub-600 is only at the tested current of 350mA. It is actually rated to go as high as 1050mA and over 1500 lumens. With the guys around here, we’ll probably be seeing it going past 2000 soon enough. Still, requiring 11V to get there doesn’t feel right. 3S LiIon can certainly do better. :bigsmile:

~12v is interesting for both automotive and home appliances maybe.

Like I said, I know, that Cree isn’t focussed on flashlights, but it would be very neat if they could bring out lower Vf versions of those LEDs. Like the MT-G2.
For 3,xV, 6,xV and 11,xV.
Shouldn’t be a major problem for them…

And I’m still waiting for a 30-50W Vf 3,xV COB :smiley:

Low voltage and massive current is slightly nonsense, resistance is a too much of big deal and is the most real thing possible to not achieving good results, that is why everything powerful is high voltage, even the mains in the house.

Guys, we need boost drivers. Now.

XP-L HI still has the most average surface luminance per lumen out of all the LEDs shown in the image, so if you want throw that is the way to go, the simple route (no boosting).

I wonder about something as shown in the image: Does a domed XP-G2 has higher luminance (surface brightness) than a dedomed XP-L? Really?

I wonder about something as shown in the image: Does a domed XP-G2 has higher luminance (surface brightness) than a dedomed XP-L? Really?
[/quote]

Not sure about the XP-L HI (so called domeless) so far only low bins have been out via Mouser. But at any rate just calculate to see the percentage increase from 7.8 to 8.2, it is 5.128%, not a monster difference which can easily go into manufacturing tolerances of LEDs.

Remember that number is in comparison to the lumens it gives. So, overall performance is not in that number, but in the wide view of all the numbers. The apparent die size of a XPL HI is about the same as the apparent die size of the domed XP-G2, but the luminous flux is just below double that of the XP-G2. The calculation they use is cd/cm2/lm but they don’t give us the number for cd. If we work the math backward, though, we find that the cd for the domed XP-G2 would be ~5027, while the cd for the XPL HI would be ~8541. So ,the XPL HI actually wins in overall performance. That 7.8 vs 8.2 is almost meaningless in itself. It has to be taken in context.