No info on what their pricing or minimum order might be. I wonder if it would be practical to make a triple XPL optic with this to replace widened Carclo optics.
We’re losing around 20% of the LED output when XPLs are used with widened Carclo optics due to scatter off the filed lower portion. A proper optic built from the ground up for domed XPL might have 20% more output.
Very thing I was thinking when I saw this, thanks. How about a group buy for those who want to build a triple XP-L dropin?
this opens up a lot of options for multi-emitter setups. only problem is that it has to be CAD’d out hoping that it does what you want unless you just make a 1 off and test it which will probably be expensive initially.
Pretty cool, but currently they only do one material that they rate for outdoor use (not their clearest one unfortunately), and the limit for height is 6mm in that material. It looks like no overhangs or hollows,and about 97% transmission.
If they get the maximum height bigger for their coated standard material, or get the optoclear coated and rated for outdoor use, they’ll be much more useful to us flashlight nuts.
The article indicates 180x200x20mm 200x380x20mm as a maximum that can be ordered. They clearly show pictures of lenses with mounting ledges peripherally as well as hollows for the emitter dome.
Aren’t our quads and triples less than 20mm high? yes Less than 200mm in diameter? yes 97% light transmittance? We Wish! Carclo 10507 are about 89, there might be some Ledil that come in around 90-94.
So who knows how to produce the type of file they need? This would be killer! Potentially giving us 800 lumens in a quad XP-L!! (That would translate from a 20% gain over 4000 lumens to a total output in the 4800 lumen range)
I’m about to put together an Eagle Eye X6 BLF SE quad with the Cu heat sink/spacer from Nitro, this would be the ultimate lens for it.
20mm height was for the ultraclear material (200mm x 380mm max length/width) which they do not yet rate for outdoor use. Read their design guidelines pdf to see their options.
In the standard material, coated for outdoor use, the maximum size is 6mm x 200mm x 200mm.
Edit: 97% is the transmittance of the plastic, I’m not sure if there would end up being losses in the optic. Without having done any research, it seems entirely possible that there are other losses to account for once you shape the plastic into an optic and another few percent of your output may be lost. I hope someone with more knowledge about this might chime in.
The optic would be in a sealed aircraft aluminum container. 
Probably the biggest concern for outdoors is UV damage, and in our case, we use our lights at night…right? 
Figuring if I come across too utterly stupid someone like TexasPyro will have to step in and correct me.
Other’s with the knowledge are, of course, also welcome to kick my soapbox out from under my feet. I have no idea how all this works, just want it to be made in a 24mm Quad that I can stuff in my big Cu shell with 4 XP-L’s screaming underneath it. :bigsmile:
I figured the same thing Dale. I bet the outdoor rated material is meant to withstand constant UV light which should not be an issue with the flashlights.
I’m going to admit ignorance and ask if any part of the light coming from our LED’s is in the UV wavelength. (other than UV LED’s of course)
My impression was that white light is the combination of many wavelengths. Does the way LED’s and the phosphor layer work not produce any UV light at all? If they do, the proximity to the LED must be considered because it’s producing a heck of a lot of lux at that distance, I’d guess significantly more than just sitting in the sunlight. It may yellow even without constant exposure if this is the case.
Also, my flashlights aren’t stored in blacked out boxes, they see sun and fluorescent lighting. FOR ME (caps to emphasize that this my opinion only) I don’t know if I could justify a fancy custom optic if I knew I had to be concerned about keeping it in the dark to prevent yellowing, unless of course the price was reasonable.
We see the effect of UV on the Lexan car headlight covers all the time, supposedly they make these “outdoor rated” and yet….
So is the use of plastics in the lights something that will see hazing or discoloration over time, regardless? Will the AR lenses reduce this effect possibly, or not?
Limo tint slip covers for daytime? 
Better yet, is the hazing a result of UV light or just micro divots from sand, etc while driving? Wet sand with 2000 grit sandpaper, polish, and they clear up. It’s just the outer layer that hazes.
I never once had to polish the 8” round glass headlight on my ’51 Chevy. Or my ’74 Comet. It was stupid easy to stick a $7 new rectangular glass headlight in the ’77 Seville.
Why do these crazy Lexan covered hazed lights cost $200 and up? Sometimes I wonder about technology. Especially now. print a new one and move on… lol
I think the indoor rated material would be fine. Now we just need someone with the skills to step up to the plate and design triple and quad optics fitted for domed XPL… and to check the pricing and minimum order quantity. :heart_eyes: