Light loss in a S2+ triple mod, added similar data for a reflector light in post#8, added data in post#20

41 posts / 0 new
Last post

Pages

djozz
djozz's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 10819
Location: Amsterdam
Light loss in a S2+ triple mod, added similar data for a reflector light in post#8, added data in post#20

I made a mellow S2+ triple shorty with gen.2 92CRI 3000K Oslon Square leds a while ago with a 2x7135 driver (700mA) as a reading light for my girlfriend, and it occurred to me today that with its very flat output it is a good light to measure what the actual light loss is from this common BLF-mod. The typical Carclo 10507 TIR triple optic claims 10% loss, but that is measured with an XP-E size die, and there's the rim at the front that blocks some light too. And I like to use the glass lens to protect the optic from scratching.

 

I found a piece of flashlight head in my junk pile that had the wrong threading but could conveniently be forced between pill and battery tube so that a bare triple head was constructed for maeasuring the primary amount of light in my integrating sphere. Both set-ups have exact the same regulated current and I suppose the leds put out the same amount of light.

 

 

So here are the numbers:

Bare leds: 241 lumen

Assembled S2+ with clear Carclo 10507: 188 lumen. So there's a 22% loss

Assembled S2+ with frosted Carclo 10511: 175 lumen. 7% loss going from clear to frosted

Assembled S2+ with frosted Carclo 10511, stock glass lens added (no AR coating): 164 lumen. 6% loss from the lens

 

So going from bare leds to an assembled S2+ with clear triple optic and non-ARcoated glass lens will cost you 27% output. (edit: Nichia 219 leds and probably XP-G2 as well do a bit better in this optic, see post#20)

I do not think if measuring the same for a black S2+ host will obtain any different numbers. Using other leds will give slightly different numbers I guess, because the light will enter the optic somewhat different  but I doubt the difference will be much.

Edited by: djozz on 06/27/2016 - 17:16
agnelucio
agnelucio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 18 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2015 - 12:36
Posts: 99
Location: UK

How much overlap is there around the inside of the bezel (over the edge of the optic)?

I’d imagine, with such small optics, that any little overlap would make a massive difference.

Nice test anyway!

djozz
djozz's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 10819
Location: Amsterdam

agnelucio wrote:
How much overlap is there around the inside of the bezel (over the edge of the optic)?

I’d imagine, with such small optics, that any little overlap would make a massive difference.

Nice test anyway!


The overlap is there but it would not differ more than a few percent, would it? Mind also that the center part of the little TIR’s is brighter than the reflector part.
Ouchyfoot
Ouchyfoot's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 09/01/2012 - 06:15
Posts: 5087
Location: Canada

Very good data collection djozz. I always wondered how many stray photons were serving a life prison sentence inside thes optic heads.

Caleb
Caleb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 46 min ago
Joined: 03/13/2016 - 01:28
Posts: 292

Wow, almost a quarter of the lumens lost from the optic. That’s significant.

So does this mean that a reflector is more efficient since most of the light is reflected forward?

agnelucio
agnelucio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 18 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2015 - 12:36
Posts: 99
Location: UK

But the outer edge is responsible for more throw, so that will be slightly compromised. I didn’t think the reflector brightness varied across it’s radius. I may be wrong.

I’d say that’s more than a few percent, but there’s only one way to find out! Big Smile

djozz
djozz's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 10819
Location: Amsterdam

agnelucio wrote:
But the outer edge is responsible for more throw, so that will be slightly compromised. I didn’t think the reflector brightness varied across it’s radius. I may be wrong.

I’d say that’s more than a few percent, but there’s only one way to find out! Big Smile


I will try to think of a way…
djozz
djozz's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 10819
Location: Amsterdam

 

Ok, the BLF A6, stock with 5A led, mode 3 of 7, so 100% 7135 controlled and fairly constant:

 

Bare led: 80.9 lumen

Bare led + white plastic centering ring: 79.7 lumen. So 1.5% loss by the ring

Assembled BLF-A6 with non-AR lens: 67.2 lumen

Assembled BLF-A6 with stock AR-coated lens: 69.1 lumen. So the AR lens gains 2.8%.

 

So going from the bare led to the assembled stock BLF-A6 with AR-coated lens will cost 14.6% of the light, with non-AR coated lens 17%. Note that the coated lens is 1.5mm, the non-coated lens is 2mm, this will not so much absorb more light but it may cause  some extra light loss to the side.

 

If you calculate back the effect of just the reflector (well, almost, plus loss from the bezel which is as good as completely out of the way in this light), I get 10.3% loss (so 89.7% efficient)

 

So using this 24mm head tube-style host,  in single led form with a reflector it will extract more light (83%) than in triple led form with Carclo triple optic (73%)

Caleb
Caleb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 46 min ago
Joined: 03/13/2016 - 01:28
Posts: 292

Thanks Djozz for the data.

CRX
CRX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 04/02/2013 - 15:27
Posts: 2007
Location: Scotland

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… LOL

I’m wondering what the results would be for dedomed or XP-L HI emitters?

djozz
djozz's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 10819
Location: Amsterdam

CRX wrote:
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… LOL

..or set the trees on fire with them for the extra lumens Flat Stare
CRX
CRX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 04/02/2013 - 15:27
Posts: 2007
Location: Scotland

THE_dAY
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 44 min ago
Joined: 05/18/2013 - 12:56
Posts: 443
Location: sfv, california

Thank you djozz, appreciate the testing and info!

agnelucio
agnelucio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 18 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2015 - 12:36
Posts: 99
Location: UK

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. Evil

fixed it
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 39 min ago
Joined: 12/08/2015 - 14:27
Posts: 332
Location: Canada

djozz wrote:
The overlap is there but it would not differ more than a few percent, would it? Mind also that the center part of the little TIR’s is brighter than the reflector part.
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.
agnelucio
agnelucio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 18 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2015 - 12:36
Posts: 99
Location: UK
fixed it wrote:
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. Wink

fixed it
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 39 min ago
Joined: 12/08/2015 - 14:27
Posts: 332
Location: Canada

agnelucio wrote:
Triple + black electrical tape = fire. Be sure to set it to low. Wink

Care to tell that story? Smile Sounds interesting.
MRsDNF
MRsDNF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 44 min ago
Joined: 12/22/2011 - 21:18
Posts: 11466
Location: A light beam away from the missus in the land of Aus.

I’m with Caleb here. Wow. Thanks for the testing djozz.

My current and or voltage measurements are only relevent to anything that I measure.

Budget light hobby proudly sponsored by my Mastercard and unknowingly paid for by a hard working wife. 

djozz said "it came with chinese lettering that is chinese to me".

old4570 said "I'm not an expert , so don't suffer from any such technical restrictions".

Old-Lumens. Highly admired and cherished member of Budget Light Forum. 11.5.2011 - 20.12.16. RIP.

 

djozz
djozz's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 10819
Location: Amsterdam

fixed it wrote:
agnelucio wrote:
Triple + black electrical tape = fire. Be sure to set it to low. ;)
Care to tell that story? Smile Sounds interesting.

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  cry )  :

Bare leds: 241 lumen. I remeasured it and the output is consistent Smile

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 Wink

 

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 Wink

Firelight2
Firelight2's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 04/08/2011 - 15:17
Posts: 2337
Location: California

Great testing DJozz.

That said, there are a number of things that can be done to reduce the light loss:

  • Do not use a lens – The optical acrylic in Carclo optics is strong stuff. Many lights use optical acrylic as their lens material and don’t have glass on top. Adding a lens on top of a Carclo optic is unnecessary. I have a number of small triples where the optic is exposed at the front of the light and the light is loose in my pocket with my keys. I’ve yet to suffer any damage to the optic. And if by some chance the optic did get damaged. it’s actually cheaper to buy a new 10507 optic than it is to buy a new AR coated glass lens.
  • Use a host that doesn’t hide so much of the lens – The Convoy S2+ hides a bit more of the optic than some other lights. While some part of the edge hidden is unavoidable, it is possible to reduce the light loss seen in the Convoy. Alternatively, you could file down the inside bezel of the Convoy to reveal more of the optic. This might make your light look like crap though.
  • Different emitter – I’m not sure this would make a difference, but it might. Carclo rates their optics at 10% loss with XPE, while Djozz tested 20% with Oslon Square, and 16% with Nichia 219C. I wonder how other emitters fare under these optics. XPL HI? XPG2 and 3?, Nichia 219B? Presumably smaller dies would see less 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.

Flashy Mike
Flashy Mike's picture
Offline
Last seen: 32 min 39 sec ago
Joined: 01/14/2016 - 16:38
Posts: 697
Location: Germany

Thanks a lot for this work! I always wondered how much light gets lost in optic and the overlapping bezel.

Pablo E.
Pablo E.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/08/2015 - 13:54
Posts: 234
Location: Spain (GMT+1)
Flashy Mike wrote:
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!

pilotdog68
pilotdog68's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 05/30/2013 - 23:31
Posts: 6346
Location: Held against my will in IOWA, USA

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.

My Favorite Modded Lights: X6R, S8 , X2R , M6, SP03

Major Projects:  Illuminated Tailcap, TripleDown/TripleStack Driver

will34
will34's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 12/18/2012 - 00:12
Posts: 3193

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. Smile

djozz
djozz's picture
Online
Last seen: 6 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 10819
Location: Amsterdam

I made a mistake, just edited the beamshot in post#20

Ouchyfoot
Ouchyfoot's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 09/01/2012 - 06:15
Posts: 5087
Location: Canada

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.

Firelight2
Firelight2's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 04/08/2011 - 15:17
Posts: 2337
Location: California

will34 wrote:
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. Smile

I think it’s more what you want the light to do.

  • If want a “pocket rocket” with maximum possible lumens to illuminate a wide area at close range – it’s hard to beat a triple or quad. For the same size light they simply emit more light more efficiently than you can get with a single emitter. They make an excellent choice for an EDC light where you mostly want to illuminate things in a room or your yard. For instance, if you’re trying to vacuum the floor, it is handy to have a light that lights up the entire floor in front of you. A light that most just lights up one spot is less useful.
  • on the other hand if you want a light that can illuminate something a hundred yards away, as well as being useful up close, then a single emitter can be much superior. Overall lumen output may be much less, but you make up for this with a much more intense hotspot.

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.

agnelucio
agnelucio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 18 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2015 - 12:36
Posts: 99
Location: UK
Ouchyfoot wrote:
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!

Firelight2 wrote:
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.

altonx
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 5 days ago
Joined: 02/22/2016 - 08:34
Posts: 229
Location: Central Europe

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.

Caleb
Caleb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 46 min ago
Joined: 03/13/2016 - 01:28
Posts: 292

I LOVE THIS FORUM.

Just when I think I have an understanding of the variables at work, more information is shared by another member from another part of our planet, that sheds more light (pun intended).

Awesome!

Firelight2
Firelight2's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 04/08/2011 - 15:17
Posts: 2337
Location: California
altonx wrote:
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.

Good point. Assuming your light is driven at the same current and is using the same type of emitter, a multi-emitter light should always be more efficient than the single emitter. This is because LEDs are inherently more efficient at low currents.

I think the issue with heat and multi-emitter lights only comes up when they’re heavily driven. You can’t drive a single XPL or Nichia 219C light at 15 amps… the LED simply isn’t capable of pulling that much current. But you can drive a triple or quad at those currents.

Pages