XHP-35

LED Flashlights – General Info
105

What about the Convoy L4? You can get an extension tube for it, run 4 18350’s and the reflector is nice enough that it should put out a surprising beam. The light has a tail clicky for lock-out, a side e-switch for modes, so while it wouldn’t be exactly easy it will take Neven’s LD-2 (I know this because I put an LD-1 in the L4)

So, while the XHP-35 is showing an impressive potential, it’s rapidly becoming apparent that it will take a rare set of conditions in a host to properly utilize it. The Fenix TK series has stackable tubes with carriers, so the carrier could be modified to 4S and a second tube also modified would extend run time. With that huge reflector (even though it’s plastic) this emitter should really rock!

106

i hope i can finish my build the next days….

i don’t want to tell to much early because if i fail… :wink:

107

I bet the Starry Light SA-22, 4 X AA with HD XHP-35 top bin LED might push out 2000+ lumens on a 1.5 amp driver.

108

This is a P series, not L, so it is aluminum except for the battery holder. It takes 4 x AA cells, so 4 x 14500 would fit.

It comes with an XR-E, probably why it is offered for this price. So it is no harder putting an XHP-35 and 14500s in it than to put an XM-L2 or XP-L and AAs. The mechanical driver should work as is, or one could change the resistor values. It is about half as compact as 4 x 18350, but 14500 is a more common cell size.

109

The cells are parallel though, running a single cree emitter. We need series for 16.8 volts, not parallel for 4.2V. Not saying it can’t be done, but it’ll be a dang sight more difficult than swapping in an XM-L2.

110

The P14 is 4 s AA for 3V to the LED and 3V for stray and driver resistances.
So the same holder will take four 14500s in series to give a nominal 14.8 V, or 16.8 at full charge. 14.8 nominal minus 12 nominal leaves 2.8 V for stray and driver resistance.
My replacement XP-L came today, so I may have more on the P14 soon.

111

Very interesting, there weren’t any pics or much of any information so I couldn’t see how they were making that work.

I built my second XHP-35 this evening. And this one is a sweet light, if it holds up. Again, I used the LED4POWER LD-2 driver, with 250KOhms on the right hand resistor at the cell choice set-up and mode 2 soldered. I didn’t use moon on this one, so it’s 3 levels. The 1M resistor is changed to 2M, the stock 180KOhm sense resistor was left in place.

With 4 Efest IMR18350 Purple cells it shows 3.10A at the tail, and the lightbox reads…

327.75 lumens
976.35 lumens
2363.25 lumens

302.75Kcd for 1100M throw.

The host? Olight M2X UT Javelot. :slight_smile: It had an extension tube and the 4 Efests fit right in so I took a chance. lol It’s not as tight a beam as the de-domed XM-L2 was, but it is still a nice beam profile and I’m about to head outside to check it out, just finished it.

I hope it keeps working because the driver is JB Welded to the contact board and totally engulfed, filling all available space in the driver cavity and it went in curing so if it fails the light will be trash.

112

Great output for LED size.

113

Dale, if you have time could you possibly also run an XML2 controlled test at a few different check points?

I ran some tests with the emitters in my setup the way it was designed to hold them, and also got higher numbers than with my first test ( although the dead fall remained the same). In any case if I could get a bit more data to compare to it would be helpful.

If you dont have time or what ever I understand though :)

114

I have a question:

is this led driveable with a normal 12v led driver (700ma)? like the one for the 10w COB?

115

Can the XHP-35 HI outperform a Dedomed XP-G2 in throw in a aspherical setup ?

116

i think if lumen per mm2 are higher - i think hope so

die is bigger, but lumens are higher…
but on my phone its pita to search numbers :wink:

117


I guess it depends on what you mean by out perform. Surface brightness= Lux in this case if all other factors are the same. Its been my experiance that with an aspherical set up when you go to a larger die provided both LEDs are top bin (ie roughly the same surface brightness) that you get about the same lux, but with a larger hot spot and more lumens.

For example if you have a top bin XPE2 and a top bin XPG2 both driven to the emitter max in the same light you will get only slightly more lux ( if any) from the XPG2 than the XPE. However you will get a larger hot spot at the same distance and more lumens.

So if the XPE2 is performing at 179,000 lux you will get a very similar number with the XPG2.


The only reason I would thing you stand to gain any lux in an aspherical setup with the XHP-35 is that is comes on the SC5 platform which your XPG2 does not, so over all surface brightness with this emitter driven to max would most likely be higher.

I have not completed testing with this yet so I have no apples to apples yet though.

118

Dale,

One more question. Do you happen to have a lux reading on the one you did with the courui reflector?

119

I only held the Courui reflector over it by hand, didn’t put one in a Courui. I was just looking to see how the different reflector design would affect performance as the reflector in the SN50 is one of those styled for the Luminus SST-50 and not really advantageous for a throwy style emitter. The deeper Courui big head reflector tightened up the beam profile considerably, so in a thrower light this emitter makes more sense.

I don’t have a bench power supply so I don’t really have a way to run numbers on efficiency and output at the different current levels.

120

i plan to wire the unburnt LD-2 (2S configured) to the middle of the 4 cells getting 8.4 V and only wiring the LED to 16.8 V.

lets see how that works

after that i choose reflector or lens

121

I think this light UltraFire 1226 if modded for 4S1P will be nice with this emitter

122

Yech! :Sp

123

....................................Apples to Apples to Apples :)........................................


Ok men. Let me start by saying that I do apologize for the misinformation given in my first post about the output of this emitter. When I did the dead fall test just sitting the emitter in the middle of my light box I had not originally planned to post lumen numbers, but after seeing a side by side with an XML I assumed they would be close.

This was not only incorrect, it was a lazy and foolish thing to do and again I am sorry.




That said I decided that it was time to compile some hard data so I spend the past several days doing just that. I wanted to get a true apples to apples comparison for this emitter vs XML2 and also produce some solid numbers for our application. So off we go.



The first step in this was to use my light box as it was intended. With the emitter shooting from the side rather than just placed in the box.

My setup is not exactly a "sphere" but its not a pipe either. Its more of a glorified ceiling bounce. As to its effectiveness I will let each judge for himself based on the data below.

Here is a pic of my complete setup.



Its a Styrofoam ice chest with the sensor mounted on the inside wall.







Phase 1: Calibration

To calibrate with this setup I have always used a light that was tested by CPF member ti-force for me several years ago.

I also tested 2 other lights I had with known output from a reputable manufacturer. My 4sevens X10 and AA2. My versions are older ones but I still have the boxes for output numbers.

All measurements are taken at the one minute mark because that is where I think the most realistic numbers can be expected. This gives the light time to level off. If I am not mistaken true ansi readings are taken between 30-120 seconds.

Lights used for calibration 8/10/15 Measured FC multiplier from FC
Shorty mag as tested by Ti-force 875 lumen 2710 0.322
4sevens X10 640 lumen 2000 0.32
4sevens Quark AA2 280 lumen 914 0.306
Test #2 Shorty mag 875 lumen 2710 0.322

All of the lights tested very near rated output. The far column is the multiplier derived from foot candles. With those 4 sets of numbers to go off of I decided to use .32 as my multiplier for the following tests.


Phase 2: Testing bare emitters

Now for the output tests. All of these are bare emitters reflowed to a copper Sinkpad reflowed to a solid copper bar.

Cree XM-L2 U4 Measured Lumens Cree Chart
1000ma 432 459
1500ma 620 629
2000ma 793 824
2500ma 900
3000ma 1100 1122
3500ma 1238 -----------------------
4000ma 1369 -----------------------
4500ma 1478 -----------------------
5000ma 1587 -----------------------

Cree XM-L2 U4 de-dome Measured Lumens Cree Chart
500ma 201 N/A
1000ma 377
1500ma 550
2000ma 707
2500ma 838
3000ma 972
3500ma 1091
4000ma 1203
4500ma 1312
5000ma 1414
Poof!

Cree XHP-35 HI C4 Measured Lumens Cree Chart
500ma 675 641
1000ma 1177 1116
1500ma 1577 -----------------------
2000ma 1888 -----------------------
2500ma 2010 -----------------------




Now in the beginning I said apples to apples to apples right. So some of you may be wondering where I got the "Crees Number" for the U4 bin XML2.

Its simple. If you look at the chart and see that when they up the bin each time starting at the base drive current of 700ma @ 85C, 20 lumens per bin is added. So I extend that to the U4 and cross referenced it with the lumens to lux graph for the higher currents.

I was able to extend the XML2 one out to 3 amps but for the XHP-35 I was not because the current table does not extend above 1050ma for that emitter, and I did not want to speculate on the exact rate of decay.

Phase 3: Testing inside a light


For this I happened to have a pair of new lights that I could use with the same reflector and basic head. My Shadow JM26 and TC 500. Since the heads of these and my made from scratch project light with an XHP-35 in all had bigger heads than my sphere was built for I cut a larger hole in it and recalibrate. This was also on another day ( the temp in my shop varies around 12 deg F from day to day. From the recalibration I had a multiplier of .336 which I rounded to .34 so the tests from here are using that.


The subjects.


For these 2 tests I powered both lights from my bench supply for a constant current.

Cree XM-L2 U4 de-dome in Shadow JM26 head (bench supply used)
1000ma 380
2000ma 683
3000ma 969
4000ma 1179
4500ma 1285

Cree XHP-35 HI C4 in Shadow TC500 ( bench supply used)
1000ma 1030
2000ma 1526
2500ma 1564




I also decided to take some lux readings from these lights and from the Arc of Josiah which uses the XHP-35 HI and a courui DO1 reflector.

Shadow XML2 lux @ 1 min was 238,500
SHadow XHP35 lux @ 1 min was 203,750
Arc of Josiah XHP35 lux at 1 min was 255,750


Here is a beam shot of both lights side by side on the wall.
Left XHP-35 HI and Right XML2 de-dome





Phase 4: Summary

It is true that this emitter does produce approximately 21% more light in a flashlight than XML2.

In this one test it does NOT produce more lux in spite of the SC5 platform vs an XML2 de-dome in the same setup.

Visually the hotspots in both light were very smooth and fairly close in size. Side by side the XML2 produced a much more "laser like" effect though because of a tighter beam and less spill.

Visually at long range outdoors the XML2 had a sharper hot spot for the same reason. The range of the XHP-35 is about the same, but the spill surrounding the hot spot is much brighter so depending on your application and preference the XHP-35 may still be a better choice.


Finally I am in no way claiming to be one of the foremost experts in this field. Nor am I trying to dispute anyone elses findings. I am simply offering this as a set of hard data produced for a point of reference.

Hope you enjoyed the show











124

Nice work VOB, greatly appreciated! :beer: