Well, if I want to make the world’s farthest throwing flashlight (of this size) then I’m gonna go all out 
Hmm. I think it is awesome you are looking to move the state of the art forward in flashlight optics. There is certainly a lot of room for improvement. I may be reading you wrong but it seems your approach is myopic. If you want to beat the best you have to think holistically;-)
And challenge accepted. 
well, the main thing “bugging me” for a couple Y-e-a-r-s now?
has been the “site wide misconception” that “diameter = throw”, which is proving “mathematically false”.
It honestly “bugged me, nagging at me” when what “almost everyone” was saying? (only diameter matters) wasnt showing up in the equations governing this? i mean, where are the “real equations” being kept, that demonstrate this?
of particular note? the “math of the single lens zoomie”, now that i am learning “what” a numerical aperture “really is” as best i can fathom? i am fully relieved this doesnt “touch” anything else existing. It doesnt “disturb” any other ASPECT of existing site knowledge base.
this much, only affects the design choice of “what lens do i pick?”… and really, “what lens” to put into a single lens zoomie? is a HUGE decision. if you are designing a light from the ground up, its a huge parameter. if you are faced with REPLACING your existing lens, modding a new one in?? its JUST as important.
we now know, “go with the lowest f-number you can FIT into the thing” and we can be secure in the knowledge? we are doing the best thing possible.
i am starting to find other engineering and “math papers” that address “dual lens design math”… “numerical apertures of a dual lens design”.
a couple of my biggest problems? a LOT of the math papers? are geared towards “microscope design”. and almost all the rest are geared towards “imaging”… which is basically “a zoomie in reverse”
you have to bear in mind? most of this is geared towards the IMAGING optics world… and that the “film or sensor” location? is for US the source of light, and that the “source and target” are kind of reversed… the “film” in teh camera drawing? is the light source? and the “field of view” is more of the target than the source?
which means that MY VIEW of the “entrance pupil” and “exit pupil” of the 2 lens imaging system? is completely reversed… making my already hard job, twice as hard to understand thoroughly. I am trying to “grok” unfamiliar concepts? partially in reverse, and partially as stated… and its making it go slow. All the “helpful diagrams” are all stated “half in reverse” as well.
i am concentrating on the 2-lens collimation lens setup now, and am starting to take baby steps… its a matter of time, i just dont know how much. when i am done, i am done… and i will know when i am done.
this is definitely “above my pay grade” and i am not the “math hero” who should be doing this… but, until you replace me with better? i am all you get, and i find that unfortunate at best, lol.
=
it really irks me to no end? to know that at least 2 people (and more) sell high end products that are “collimated” design? and no one will talk any turkey about how its done… i dont think in the end? this is going to be the “space shuttle form nasa we all think it is”
it shares its basic mathematical concepts with a zillion low end microscopes and 2-lens fixed zoom camera lenses… “state of the art design” it ISNT… its not just commonly APPLIED to flashlights, is all…. i want to correct this.
heres the “next best” math paper i located so far? that “does anything” for me… you have to skip to basically the “last example” to “see” the 2 lens zoomie collimation system, with a discussion of the numerical ap[ertures throughout…
but, i have to drudge thru the whole thing, to get to the part that matters to me…
i would “guess” this thing reminds me of a “graduate students paper” on the subject matter, aimed at being worked on by undergraduates in the optics field, i would guess…
the biggest crime is? “high end camera geeks” do stuff like this constantly, i see their websites all over… why DONT we have any camera geeks HERE that can help out at this critical juncture and lecture us? eh?
i cant find any good math papers on making “slide projector” lenses… everything in the educational math world seems geared towards making microscopes and cameras… which is the exact opposite “viewpoint” i need to crack this nut…
why cant we “recruit” a few “serious camera geeks” to help out on this? to lecture those of us who might be able to grasp whats going on, if it were presented to us right?
i need “lectured to”, but… i need JUST the right lecturer at the podium, lol…
WOW!
Saabluster on BLF? :+1:
Well Seedstar and Enderman you have true aspherical flashlight enthusiast here.
He did brake records at times when XRE was considered as best throwing emitter and when 15-20kcd lights were considered super throwers.
Saabluster one question for you? What is your opinion on newest led emitters coming from Cree? It seems like they do not care for surface brightness any more? They only care for lumens… All good emitters disappeared.
its “SED” not “Seed”, but thats no big deal, i know who you mean…
what do you mean by “holistic”… the only time i hear the word “holistic” is when aging hippies are trying to tell me to drink special bad tasting tea, instead of going to the hospital for serious medical problems, lol…
@ “everybody involved”…
if anyone knows the ins and outs of “entrance pupil” and “exit pupil” it would cut off another “learning curve” for me…? just keep in mind, that the “camera film” is going to be the source, and the “thing you are imaging” will become the “target”, effectively reversing the two words the way you “likely” use the terms…
in other news? i dont know EXACTLY how to physically arrange the 2 lenses,as far as estimating distances and such… I now am leaning towards we do NOT use the “2 lens formula”… and, i am STARTING to “hunch” towards “galilean telescope” arrangement… which would make “tekwyzrd” ironically closer than anyone else? simply because he was playing with the airgap equalling both focal lengths added together, lol…
my reasoning? look at the last 2 equations in the edmunds optics paper? look at how the two focal lengths are a ratio to each other… thats awfully close to the “FL1/FL2 = magnification” standard 2 lens galilean telescope setup…
i am pretty sure i DONT arrange the 2 lenses as a simple compound lens…
i am “sort of” sure i DONT arrange them both to have the emitter be “at focal length” for both lenses…
i am left with, until more possibilities emerge:
1) 1st collimator lens, at its focallength… focusing big lens, focal length resting on the lens of the collimator
2) same thing, but… focusing lens on the collimating lens’s “image plane”
3) airgap on the 2 lenses = collimator’s forward focal length + focusing lens’s back focal length
if anyone knows anything? or even thinks they do? pipe up!
I am not happy. I mean I understand why they are moving in the direction they are but I don’t have to like it. Their shortsightedness has spurred me to do some hard core development work. Far beyond simple light mods. Currently I see the industry moving away from intensity to brightness. This is in my opinion an opportunity. Some like Osram are trying but they do not have the best combination of technologies to achieve maximum throw. At least they are not combining them in the best manner yet. Cree no longer have the best die for throw. But they still have the best phosphor. I am currently trying to chart a clear path for the future but it is mighty difficult. Need to rely less on what companies like Cree do from here on out. I will say that I may have a way to make lemonade out of the Cree lemons(XPG3) but there is much development work to go to achieve it.
I mean one has to give equal rigor to all the constituent parts. Trying to beat my own Victor Enthusiast has been difficult. By that I mean specific performance. It is easy for me to beat it with a larger lens. I simply can’t state enough how important it is to think of the whole instead of a single facet of a completed light. That is not to say that there are not bursts of creative focus. Honing specific areas. I just got a sense that you think this foray into honing optics is the holy grail that will result in a world record setter. There are just so many factors at play. In my experience nothing replaces good hard manual testing. I had this conversation on CPF years ago with another very knowledgable member about mathematical modeling vs manual testing. I am personally in the test camp but I am admittedly somewhat old school. To be the absolute best designer possible you have to know what is relevant to know. What to know and what to leave be. A crowded or myopic mind cannot clearly perceive the way forward.
It seems like you are trying to modd or even make your own emitters? Well that is something beyond my skills.
You are true flashlight maestro(especially aspherical flashlight) and I don’t even doubt that you’ll make something good.
And yes very nice to see you on BLF! 
well, i’m not being myopic, IE focusing on one thing per se…
what i MEAN, is that no matter “what” emitter you decide to run thru the lens in a single lens zoomie? if you “meet or beat” the numerical aperture? it will do its best.
thats from moonlight to the big amp mods… once you nail your emission angle? the f-number/numerical aperture of the LENS has to meet or beat THAT angle.
i mean naturally you still want “best practice” on the light you shoev thru the lens… if you mismatch that acceptance angle? you are handicapping yourself…