The other lights/ designs will be just as big. It’s not meant to show the size of my design, but rather the scale of the overall dimensions If I’d replace my design with any other one we have it’d be the same size.
Maybe we can even add all designs in one render. That would be great!
Nice work jerommel! Because I’ve seen this to, but I have been searching the web for a nice diagram to just show what you just have posted.
And for that part, if the reflector is deeper than 112mm we will catch even more light rays…but then we are going (maybe) beyond a outside design that will be “good looking”?
But nice work mr.J!! :+1: :student:
Can you put in a depth measure of 120mm?
The same as the diameter…
Or for that part: put in an extreme “depth” of 140mm in that diagram…
Can you do that?
You convinced me that throw does not increase with reflector depth because of the distorted image of the die projection. Only the corona increases. That is because you capture more light in the top end, but the bottom end is too close to the led and disperses the led more.
Deeper reflector will cut away the spill, and increase costs allover.
Shallower reflector should provide more spill and a smaller corona, and reduced cost.
Take the TK61 which is another way overpriced light and old thrower. It has a shallow reflector and decent throw for a smaller light.
I have download this program to my computer, that can calculate the measures we need for a given diameter/depth.
mscir.tripod.com/parabola/
This means I/we can give the exsact numbers for a given input (diameter/depth)to our manufacturer With this program the diagram it seem to be more efficient with a deeper reflector, because we gather more light rays in the beam, and we don`t get so much spill..
So I need to apologize a bit for my previous post about that 120/93mm measures, cause I just got that number (93mm) out of that given parabola in post #1789
I`m now more conviced that a deeper reflector is the way to go, but a deeper means also a lower measure at that (0.f) focus point. See pictures:
With that in matter I would go for a reflector that measures 120mm in depth as well, but that means a "real depth" of our reflector to be 120mm - 7,5mm up to the focus point = 112,5mm
In another term: that measure from an upscaled TN42 was correct! Hence my apologize... ;)
Yeah the focal length needs to be subtracted from the parabola height to get the actual height of the reflector.
That’s why the graphs I made completely ignore everything below the focal plane and you can adjust the actual height, the height you will get from the manufacturer.
Currently I have a function for intensity at an angle, a function for radius at an angle, and almost a function for total % light captured. Still working on it.
I took the closest possible parabola to it, there is no easy way to make a function that copies the intensity curve unless you use piecewise, which I might try to do, or might not
Anyway, it is pretty accurate. 0 to 100% intensity, –90 to +90 degrees.
Orange is the function, white is the intensity curve from cree.
Function is y=-.015x^2+100\left\y>0\right\
Green line at y=–1 indicates the degrees that are being collected by the reflector.
This is what the pattern for total light contained at different angles looks like:
It is a polar graph of sin(x)cos(x). Grapher web app here.
It is sort of an unexpected result. Although the light coming right off the top of the LED is the most intense, there is more light at the steeper angles to the side, and this results in the “lobes” in the graph. This is why the light collection efficiency of most aspheric lights is bad and the light collection efficiency of most reflector lights is good.