So what you’re saying is that we need to find about 30% more power for our Fun Build triples to make up for this loss… :laughing:
I’m wondering what the results would be for dedomed or XP-L HI emitters?
So what you’re saying is that we need to find about 30% more power for our Fun Build triples to make up for this loss… :laughing:
I’m wondering what the results would be for dedomed or XP-L HI emitters?
…or set the trees on fire with them for the extra lumens
Thank you djozz, appreciate the testing and info!
You could always try the triple with a widened bezel (with a file or penknife)…
I would do it myself, but my XPL-HI triple is disassembled for repair.
Either way, 3 XPLs make up for the slight loss in output. :smiling_imp:
Great tests! To find out about the overlap contribution, how about taking the bare LED light, putting the optic on top and wrapping it with black electrical tape so no light escapes from the side.
Triple + black electrical tape = fire. Be sure to set it to low.
Care to tell that story? Sounds interesting.
I’m with Caleb here. Wow. Thanks for the testing djozz.
Yes, I thought this was a quiet sunday afternoon little pastime project avoiding the things that I really had to do (but were less fun). But since I'm at it anyway here we go, electrical tape, last set of measurements on this subject:
You can see in the top view photo that the electrical tape is not touching the little reflectors (undisturbed yellow reflection)
Here's how it looks in the dark:
The numbers (the flashlight from the OP was disassembled again ) :
Bare leds: 241 lumen. I remeasured it and the output is consistent :-)
Carclo 10507 added, the side packed with electrical tape: 194 lumen.
This is a 19.5% light loss from just the optic so just 80.5% efficiency. I looked up the specsheet for the 10507 and it claims 88.7% for the XP-E and 86% for the Rebel. It sounds logical optically that the bigger the die, the less efficient the optic because a bigger part of the object is not in the best imaged middle.
This also implies that the flashlight head, blocking part of the optic, just eats up 3.1% of the light, so that is not as dramatic as it may look like.
I had another thought: the flashlight from the OP has gen.2 Oslon Square leds which have a funny-shaped dome that perhaps messes with the optic?:
I have another (coincidentally also red coloured) S2+ triple mod with 3000K Nichia 219C leds. I wondered if the 10507 has a different efficiency for those. So I did the same electrical tape measurement with the 219C light as was done with the Oslon Square light. I chose also a steady low mode for this.
Results:
Bare leds: 82.5 lumen
Carclo 10507 added, the side packed with electrical tape: 69.4 lumen
So that is 84.1% efficiency, quite a lot better than the 80.5% from the Oslons! And actually the beams from the two lights would have given a clue already, the 219C beam has a narrower tidier hotspot than the Oslon Square beam (left Osram Oslon Square beam, right Nichia 219C beam, the Oslon beam was a bit brighter, but you can still see the difference, and better in reality) :
Could it be that the XP-L Hi with its messy beam through the 10507 has an efficiency even under 80%? Well, I'm not going to find out, I've done enough of these measurements now ;-)
Edit: aaarrggh, messed up the last beamshot, forgot that the Oslon Square light had its frosted optic back. Had to change that for a clear 10507 and here is the real comparison:
So the Oslon actually gives a tighter hotspot than the Nichia 219, but still more light is lost through the optic. It is getting too complicated for me now ;-)
Great testing DJozz.
That said, there are a number of things that can be done to reduce the light loss:
The combination of not using an outer lens and using a more revealing bezel should reduce the light loss from almost 30% to around 20…. much closer to the 14 loss seen in a typical reflector light with AR coated lens.
Thanks a lot for this work! I always wondered how much light gets lost in optic and the overlapping bezel.
Thanks a lot for this work! I always wondered how much light gets lost in optic and the overlapping bezel.
Same here, thanks for the numbers djozz!
Well that’s gross….
I was getting away from 20mm triples now just because I want more throw out of the little lights, but man, that’s major. Explains a bit of how hot they get too.
Thanks for the test!
I wonder what’s the case with XP-L HI and XP-G3, in my opinion the light loss with the HI is massive, as my triple DD copper sinner 18650 gets host faster where the optic is than where the pill touches the body. Most likely light loss and scattered to the sides but have no way to test it unless I build a “lumen tube”, ceiling bounce won’t be precise for this test.
It seems like searching for good reflectors and hosts will become a top priority from now on, rather than stucking carclo triples and quad into everything.
I made a mistake, just edited the beamshot in post#20
Yes. Of coarse we will have light loss through our triple optics. You will have light loss with single emitter reflectors too. There will always be light loss of some sort. Trying to keep photons all rounded up is like herding cats.
Are triples worth it. Let’s compare the same light with single emitter with reflector against a triple optic.
Thanks for the test!
I wonder what’s the case with XP-L HI and XP-G3, in my opinion the light loss with the HI is massive, as my triple DD copper sinner 18650 gets host faster where the optic is than where the pill touches the body. Most likely light loss and scattered to the sides but have no way to test it unless I build a “lumen tube”, ceiling bounce won’t be precise for this test.
It seems like searching for good reflectors and hosts will become a top priority from now on, rather than stucking carclo triples and quad into everything.
I think it’s more what you want the light to do.
From Djozz’s testing it sounds like a well-built single-emitter light may have around 15% light loss into the reflector and lens compared to maybe 20% loss into the bezel and optic of a no-lens triple. In my opinion, that 5% difference in efficiency isn’t enough to make a significant contrast between the two types of lights.
Are triples worth it.
It will ultimately still come down to mid-lumen throw vs high-lumen flood. But as usual, it’s been a pleasure experimenting for the sake of knowledge. Thanks Djozz!
In my opinion, that 5% difference in efficiency isn’t enough to make a significant contrast between the two types of lights.
Yeah, especially when it’s completely overshadowed by three times the emitter lumens.
This test is very interesting but let’s not forget about efficiency gain with lower currents with multiple LEDs. According to data from Cree PCT:
Single XP-L HD V6 driven around 10W with Tj=60C (attainable with copper DTP) produces 1165 lm (@10.174W to be precise).
Triple XP-L HD V6 driven at 9.94W produce 1583 lm at the same Tj. Quad XP-L HD V6 driven at 10.01W will output 1681 lm.
That’s around 36% more for triple and 44% for quad. Higher efficiency means less heat and I assume here exactly same junction temps. So even if TIR waste most of this there’s still plenty of gain over single LED with reflector. As to perceived more heat for triples it also can be explained with the LED count - three LEDs have 3 times the contact area so will be more efficient with heat transfer to the radiator so it will heat up faster. This also means LEDs could run slightly cooler compared to single LED so will gain still a few percent of efficiency. If there’s a good cooling all of the above should be quite true and the difference towards multiple LED setup could be even higher. But there’s too many dependent variables to accurately predict in specific case, and with small hosts heat sinking may not be adequate. Someone with required equipment at his disposal would have to test that.