Cree XD16 measurements

57 posts / 0 new
Last post

Pages

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 1517
Location: Ohio
Cree XD16 measurements

I was pretty excited about this LED and the possibility of making customized multi-die emitters. I ordered some from Arrow electronics. Part number: XD16AWT-H0-0000-00000BJE3. Should be S2 flux bin. I measured the output, forward voltage, and resulting intensity in a flashlight.

I made a makeshift MCPCB out of 1.6mm thick copper. I glued two pieces of the copper together with JB weld so that there was a small gap. To electrically isolate the two pieces from the shelf I used a couple thin strips of kapton tape on the bottom of the board.

Output measurements:
I measured the lux above the LED with the lux meter 0.59m from the LED. Assuming the angular light distribution is that of a Lambertian emitter I can calculate the total lumen output if I know the luminous intensity (cd) above the LED. I explain this more in this thread, and it seems to be consistent with other users’ measurements of the LEDs. The below lumen numbers are calculated using this method. I stopped the measurement at 5A because I wanted to save it for other measurements.

The output is lower than I hoped. The good news is that the whole surface of the LED appears to be lit uniformly. I don’t know if the whole area is covered by the actual die, but it did not look like the outer parts were any dimmer (like with the nichia E21A). So I think an array of these really would look like one gigantic seamless die. I did notice some blue light escaping out from the side of the package, similar to other cree flip chip LEDs if the side-phosphor is removed.

I put the LED in an eagle eye X6 and measured the beam intensity at 4A. Unfortunately the number is a bit disappointing at 51.5Kcd measured at 6.78m. The LED was in near perfect focus.

I was really excited to make a 3×3 array of these, but the performance will not be nearly as good as I hoped. The efficiency seems to be not that great, and the effective luminance is also not high, which would have been an advantage over XHP50.2 and XHP70.2. Now I’m not sure if I will continue with the 3×3 array. I hope others will measure the XD16 to make sure my measurements are not far off.

Update:
I was suspecting that the die does not reach to the end of the package so I scraped the phosphor off one to see. With my calipers, the package is 1.60mm across, and the die is 1.38mm across.

Edited by: EasyB on 02/18/2018 - 18:31
netprince
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 16 min ago
Joined: 06/14/2012 - 13:48
Posts: 400
Location: Virginia

Thanks for posting your results… I always like reading about new LEDs…

MRsDNF
MRsDNF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 4 min ago
Joined: 12/22/2011 - 21:18
Posts: 12524
Location: A light beam away from the missus in the land of Aus.

Excellent info you have posted up EasyB. Thanks for the testing. Thumbs Up

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.

 

everydaysurvivalgear
everydaysurvivalgear's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 29 min ago
Joined: 07/31/2015 - 10:25
Posts: 3006
Location: sydney australia (GMT+10)

Thanks for the testing mate!
Its a shame it did not perform like we thought it would.
It looks different to the XPL-HI?

everydaysurvivalgear
everydaysurvivalgear's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 29 min ago
Joined: 07/31/2015 - 10:25
Posts: 3006
Location: sydney australia (GMT+10)
Throw me in to darkness wrote:
1000lm @ 5amps?? Tired Cree is going backwards!!

Its a very small die compared to other LEDs.

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 1517
Location: Ohio

I’m disappointed with the performance mostly because I had high hopes for this LED. A 3×3 array would actually have comparable performance to a dedomed XHP70.2. At 12A (6V) the dedomed XHP70.2 does about 65 cd/mm^2 (http://budgetlightforum.com/comment/1233668#comment-1233668) and should output around 7000 emitter lumens (after a 10% loss from dedoming). At the equivalent current with the 3×3 XD16 array each LED is seeing 2.67A, so 6100 emitter lumens. The effective luminance at 4A in the X6 was 83 cd/mm^2, so at 2.67A it would be 64 cd/mm^2. So the 3×3 array would have comparable performance, but not as good efficiency, as the dedomed XHP70.2 and could be made 3V if one wanted.

That being said, it will be a lot of work to make a 3×3 array at this point, and I’m not sure the result would be good enough to warrant the work.

djozz
djozz's picture
Online
Last seen: 12 min 5 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 13618
Location: Amsterdam

Thanks for testing! That is a disappointment. If one would even question your method (looks good!), the performance in the X6 tells all there is to know (and that the measured numbers must be close): for flashlight use this led does not beat what is out there already, both in output and throw. Sad

link to djozz tests 

“I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”   (Gus Speth)

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 1517
Location: Ohio

I’ve decided I will go ahead and try to make the 3×3 array and put it in an emisar D1S. I already bought some supplies to do it and I’ve been wanting to do something with a D1S. It should pull around 24A from a high drain 18650 and do about 5500 lumens OTF and 83Kcd.

The performance might increase a bit when in array form, which it seems is the intended purpose of these LEDs. The amount of blue light escaping out the sides of a single die is significant, and I figure most of this light will become recycled and used to pump phosphor in neighboring dies in the 3×3 array. This would increase the output and luminance.

JaredM
JaredM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 13:33
Posts: 470
Location: Donegal, Pennsylvania (SW)

This is very odd. According to Cree’s PCT tool, this emitter is performing like an r2 or r3 bin. Lumen values are about 20% lower than s2 specs between one and two amps.

JaredM
JaredM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 13:33
Posts: 470
Location: Donegal, Pennsylvania (SW)

Maybe EasyB is onto something with the light recycling in an array, but I’d be quite surprised if they changed binning procedure and didn’t annotate that.

JaredM
JaredM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 13:33
Posts: 470
Location: Donegal, Pennsylvania (SW)

Also, how is the tint and beam pattern? Does that blue leakage make it into the beam?

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 1517
Location: Ohio

I also noticed that it was below the cree spec for this bin. At 1A I measured 320 lumens so about 15% lower than the spec’ed 365 lumens.

The measurements I did to investigate the XPG3 (http://budgetlightforum.com/node/54987) are relevant here. The XPG3 has the similar flip chip design. I measured the candela above the die just sliced and after I scraped all the phosphor from the area to the sides of the die. As in this measurement the candela above the die is proportional to the total lumen output. There is 15% decrease in output when I scrape all the phosphor off, allowing the blue light to escape out the sides. That situation is similar to with the XD16 by itself or surrounded by other XD16s, so I might expect a 15% increase in output when n in array form.

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 1517
Location: Ohio

JaredM wrote:
Also, how is the tint and beam pattern? Does that blue leakage make it into the beam?

Yes, there was a blue corona. It was sort of a strange tint and tint shift reminiscent of the XPG3.

I will look at the beam some more later, but I think the effective die size is actually 1.6 × 1.6mm, so the beam is a bit bigger than dedomed XPG2/3

clemence
clemence's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 07/12/2015 - 02:58
Posts: 1730
Location: Bali - Indonesia

EasyB wrote:
I’ve decided I will go ahead and try to make the 3×3 array and put it in an emisar D1S. I already bought some supplies to do it and I’ve been wanting to do something with a D1S. It should pull around 24A from a high drain 18650 and do about 5500 lumens OTF and 83Kcd.

The performance might increase a bit when in array form, which it seems is the intended purpose of these LEDs. The amount of blue light escaping out the sides of a single die is significant, and I figure most of this light will become recycled and used to pump phosphor in neighboring dies in the 3×3 array. This would increase the output and luminance.

Those DIY board is very similar to my “twig-light”.

Based on my research with Jensen567, I predict the performance would likely to get worse in tight packed array.
E21A designed with sidewall reflector to minimize photon cross talks, big problem in general luminaire when one need to put arrays in very tight space. Even with those side wall reflector, I couldn’t close the gap narrower than 0,3mm. This phenomenon was urban legend to me until all those measurements revealed the ugly truth.

This XD16 doesn’t have any barrier (hence the blue side spill), the cross talks could be even more severe. I guess you’ll get increased luminance at the expense of much lower current capability. This should not be a problem if throw is what you’re after (hopefully it can beat the black flat). As long as the luminance gain vs. max. current net to useful numbers.

Let’s hope we have something better than XPL HI. I’m really curious about it too. Looking forward to see the result.

- Clemence

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 1517
Location: Ohio

clemence wrote:
EasyB wrote:
I’ve decided I will go ahead and try to make the 3×3 array and put it in an emisar D1S. I already bought some supplies to do it and I’ve been wanting to do something with a D1S. It should pull around 24A from a high drain 18650 and do about 5500 lumens OTF and 83Kcd.

The performance might increase a bit when in array form, which it seems is the intended purpose of these LEDs. The amount of blue light escaping out the sides of a single die is significant, and I figure most of this light will become recycled and used to pump phosphor in neighboring dies in the 3×3 array. This would increase the output and luminance.

Those DIY board is very similar to my “twig-light”.

Based on my research with Jensen567, I predict the performance would likely to get worse in tight packed array.
E21A designed with sidewall reflector to minimize photon cross talks, big problem in general luminaire when one need to put arrays in very tight space. Even with those side wall reflector, I couldn’t close the gap narrower than 0,3mm. This phenomenon was urban legend to me until all those measurements revealed the ugly truth.

This XD16 doesn’t have any barrier (hence the blue side spill), the cross talks could be even more severe. I guess you’ll get increased luminance at the expense of much lower current capability. This should not be a problem if throw is what you’re after (hopefully it can beat the black flat). As long as the luminance gain vs. max. current net to useful numbers.

Let’s hope we have something better than XPL HI. I’m really curious about it too. Looking forward to see the result.

- Clemence


I’m not familiar with photon crosstalk. I looked at some of your tests. Do you just mean the edges are heated more and burn when two dies are next to each other? It seems to me that problem could be more to do with the construction of the E21A and it’s problem with phosphor cooling?

I don’t expect the XD16 to beat the black flat or XPL HI in luminance. I would expect up to a 15% increase from what I measured above, which doesn’t put it that high.

clemence
clemence's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 07/12/2015 - 02:58
Posts: 1730
Location: Bali - Indonesia

under the same setup the gapless design maxed in 4,8A (Jensen tested up to 5,5A). Spaced by 0,2mm made no difference. But using the alpha board spaced at 0,4mm it peaked very close to 12A.
250% max current increase.

No it’s not about phosphor cooling. Yes, the phosphor in E21A is indeed hotter than average but it still productive up to 3,2A/die. While in gapless quadtrix (4xarrays) max current was limited to only 1,2A/die.

- Clemence

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 1517
Location: Ohio

clemence wrote:
under the same setup the gapless design maxed in 4,8A (Jensen tested up to 5,5A). Spaced by 0,2mm made no difference. But using the alpha board spaced at 0,4mm it peaked very close to 12A.
250% max current increase.

No it’s not about phosphor cooling. Yes, the phosphor in E21A is indeed hotter than average but it still productive up to 3,2A/die. While in gapless quadtrix (4xarrays) max current was limited to only 1,2A/die.

- Clemence

This very well could be important for the XD16, but the extent of the effect is completely dependent on the chip design and phosphor heating. For example the edges of the E21A phosphor are probably more susceptible to burning because they are farther from the contacts leading to less cooling. I’ll keep it in mind during testing.
The_Driver
The_Driver's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 10/20/2016 - 05:51
Posts: 1212
Location: Germany

Thanks for the test! Interesting…

JaredM
JaredM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 13:33
Posts: 470
Location: Donegal, Pennsylvania (SW)

clemence wrote:
under the same setup the gapless design maxed in 4,8A (Jensen tested up to 5,5A). Spaced by 0,2mm made no difference. But using the alpha board spaced at 0,4mm it peaked very close to 12A.
250% max current increase.

No it’s not about phosphor cooling. Yes, the phosphor in E21A is indeed hotter than average but it still productive up to 3,2A/die. While in gapless quadtrix (4xarrays) max current was limited to only 1,2A/die.

- Clemence

Could you explain what you believe is the mechanism causing this phenomenon then?

clemence
clemence's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 07/12/2015 - 02:58
Posts: 1730
Location: Bali - Indonesia

JaredM wrote:
clemence wrote:
under the same setup the gapless design maxed in 4,8A (Jensen tested up to 5,5A). Spaced by 0,2mm made no difference. But using the alpha board spaced at 0,4mm it peaked very close to 12A.
250% max current increase.

No it’s not about phosphor cooling. Yes, the phosphor in E21A is indeed hotter than average but it still productive up to 3,2A/die. While in gapless quadtrix (4xarrays) max current was limited to only 1,2A/die.

- Clemence

Could you explain what you believe is the mechanism causing this phenomenon then?

You’ll find most of the information here:
http://budgetlightforum.com/node/51021

- Clemence

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 47 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 7858
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

Interesting results but sadly about what I expected, in fact a bit better I would say. I only expected around 800 lumens max based on the info I had.

Although you also have a DTP mcpcb, which most could not do or use with flashlights. So expect performance to be worse in actual use with a normal mcpcb.

Sadly like many have said, not very interesting for flashlight use. Although I am surprised that it still suffers the tint shift issues, wasn’t that one of the big marketing points that it fixed the tint shift issues?

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 1517
Location: Ohio

A single XD16 is not interesting, but a 2×2 or 3×3 array can have respectable performance (good output and no donut hole) with the possibility of being 3V. If my speculation is correct about the output going up by 15% upon making into an array then it can compete and even beat the XHP70.2 or XHP50.2. Of course the lack of proper MCPCBs would still limit the performance.

everydaysurvivalgear
everydaysurvivalgear's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 29 min ago
Joined: 07/31/2015 - 10:25
Posts: 3006
Location: sydney australia (GMT+10)

Are you going to run your set up in series or parallel?

If in series this would be similiar to the XHP35.

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 1517
Location: Ohio

I’m planning a 3×3 array all in parallel. Should have a 4.8mmx4.8mm light emitting surface.

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 1517
Location: Ohio

A progress shot of my 3×3 XD16 parallel MCPCB.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 47 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 7858
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

Interesting looking, and not simple lol.

JaredM
JaredM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 13:33
Posts: 470
Location: Donegal, Pennsylvania (SW)
Texas_Ace wrote:
Interesting looking, and not simple lol.

I would say “simple, but not easy” WinkInnocent

Interested in seeing the results! Thank you for your contributions!!

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 1517
Location: Ohio

Yes, simple but time consuming. Cool

I just placed the dies on to see how it will look. The copper is about 20mm in diameter. When I light it up with my DMM the contact is intermittent and only some dies light up because they are just resting there, but I can see there is good “light sharing” going on. The dies surrounding a lit die light up evenly just from the light that was escaping out the side when it was alone. So I’m hopeful about a nice boost in efficiency/output when these are in array form.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 47 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 7858
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
EasyB wrote:
Yes, simple but time consuming. Cool I just placed the dies on to see how it will look. The copper is about 20mm in diameter. When I light it up with my DMM the contact is intermittent and only some dies light up because they are just resting there, but I can see there is good “light sharing” going on. The dies surrounding a lit die light up evenly just from the light that was escaping out the side when it was alone. So I’m hopeful about a nice boost in efficiency/output when these are in array form.

When Clemence tested this with the E21 they burned the edges of the LED’s, so at higher currents it could work in reverse.

Although apparently if you put some clear silicone over the entire surface and make it thin enough to go between the dies, it will fix the problem? At least I think that was the idea.

FmC
FmC's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 38 min ago
Joined: 03/31/2013 - 05:23
Posts: 2139
Location: Brisbane, AU

Interested to see how this turns out.

Whatever happens, I salute you for the effort! Beer

djozz
djozz's picture
Online
Last seen: 12 min 5 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 13618
Location: Amsterdam

Cool! I know Clemence’s prediction but nothing beats an actual experiment! Smile

link to djozz tests 

“I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”   (Gus Speth)

Pages