19107 posts / 0 new

## Pages

The Miller
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 12/14/2015 - 12:08
Posts: 9908
Location: Charente France

Welcome to BLF!
Will update list later!

Hmm please I do not decide anything and am just another BLFer here and part of the team that is working on this with all from BLF who want to contribute.
Only thing I decided was doing a poll on the outside design since the topic lost a bit of friendliness (and that is back so nice ) and it is just plain cool to see all the beautiful designs.

I think that the closer to something we want we can get before finding a manufacturer the better

If a 120 top ID of the reflector means the ideal depth is 93 I think we should go with that, the input seems very good

MortyDuck
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 10/24/2016 - 11:24
Posts: 158
Location: Mo i Rana - Norway

Enderman wrote:
MortyDuck wrote:
As mentioned in post #5: www.phoenixelectroforms.com/parabolicstandardproducts.html Seem to be a company that knows “a thing or two” about reflectors…
A reflector from them would cost more than the entire light is planned to cost. The aim is sub \$100.

Was just an ide to see different sizes/shapes of their reflectors..
Some could even contact them “under cover” and hear wich kind of preference they have for best throw?

"Do to others, what you would like others do to you.."

-MortyDuck-

fritz15
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 01/27/2012 - 13:32
Posts: 307
Location: Denmark

To give everyone an idea of the size we are dealing here with I added some items to the renderings.

Beer bottle for scale:

Beer bottle as well as this light and this one:

Banana for scale:

Credits to the creators of the beer bottle and banana: https://grabcad.com/library

So it’s going to be a really huge light!

Edit: I am aware of the fact that we haven’t settled on a design yet. But not matter which design, the overall dimensions are similar. So this post is meant as a demonstration of the size in general rather than the size of my design.

JockRobbins
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
Joined: 11/05/2016 - 22:10
Posts: 246
Location: The slightly cooler end of a high powered torch

IF that one is chosen. Don’t get too far ahead of yourself.

fritz15
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 01/27/2012 - 13:32
Posts: 307
Location: Denmark
JockRobbins wrote:
IF that one is chosen. Don’t get too far ahead of yourself.

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!

The Miller
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 12/14/2015 - 12:08
Posts: 9908
Location: Charente France

Enderman wrote:
You guys need to start adding a banana for scale into your renders because otherwise it is hard to visualize how large it truly is. lol

NICELY done Frits!
The Miller
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 12/14/2015 - 12:08
Posts: 9908
Location: Charente France

OP updated
design post updated, please let me know if I missed a design (and yes 5ars new render is not in yet )

MortyDuck wrote:

I did some research about the perfect parabola on my own, and it seem that we are just a little bit of in our measures..
I came in contact whit Bob from a math forum, and we discussed the parabolic equation, and this is the tread:

http://www.mathisfunforum.com/viewtopic.php?id=23575

When the diameter is 120mm the depth for a perfect parabolic diagram is 92,63mm (rounded upwards to 93mm for simplicity),
not 112mm taken from an upscaled TN42 design..

Maybe it can give us an edge?

Morten.

Quote:
Almost 20mm shorter head Less weight Less material head Less material reflector Sounds more then interesting I think.
MortyDuck wrote:
That was easy: Shenzhen Bo Rui Seiko Technology Co., Ltd
Koenta wrote:
This is the graph for XHP35 HI
Jerommel
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 01/04/2014 - 13:18
Posts: 6380
Location: the Hague, Netherlands

Here’s the difference between 93 and 112mm deep reflector:

Scale: 10 pixels = 1 mm (first choose ‘view image’ for actual size)

MortyDuck
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 10/24/2016 - 11:24
Posts: 158
Location: Mo i Rana - Norway

Jerommel wrote:
Here’s the difference between 93 and 112mm deep reflector:

Scale: 10 pixels = 1 mm (first choose ‘view image’ for actual size)

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!!

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?

"Do to others, what you would like others do to you.."

-MortyDuck-

mdeni
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 08/06/2016 - 05:17
Posts: 271
Location: Europe

How about the quality of the captured light?

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.

MortyDuck
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 10/24/2016 - 11:24
Posts: 158
Location: Mo i Rana - Norway

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 dont 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
Im 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...

"Do to others, what you would like others do to you.."

-MortyDuck-

Enderman
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4219

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.

Texas_Ace
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 9036
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
JockRobbins wrote:
Hmmmm. I just knocked up a true to size mock up of the GT using a 12v car plug-in light head, and a cardboard tube. The head is freakin’ close in size to 5ars rendering and the tube is 52mm wide – all I can say is – this will be huge. We knew this of course but seeing it in the ‘flesh’ true to scale, it’s mighty.

Got a picture of this? It might help to have a real world snap shot to give people an idea of the size.

I don’t think many people truly understand what kind of monster this will be.

MortyDuck
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 10/24/2016 - 11:24
Posts: 158
Location: Mo i Rana - Norway
Enderman wrote:
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.

Ahh!!
Looking forward to see your final work!

BRING IT ON MAN!!

"Do to others, what you would like others do to you.."

-MortyDuck-

fritz15
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 01/27/2012 - 13:32
Posts: 307
Location: Denmark
Enderman wrote:
[…] 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.

That’s cool, would you mind sharing that function? How did you interpolate the curve?

Jerommel
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 01/04/2014 - 13:18
Posts: 6380
Location: the Hague, Netherlands

Enderman wrote:
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.

You mean a radiation diagram with the spherical surface integrated into it?
Enderman
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4219
fritz15 wrote:
Enderman wrote:
[…] 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.

That’s cool, would you mind sharing that function? How did you interpolate the curve?

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.
kotobuki
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 10/17/2016 - 09:41
Posts: 207
Location: US

I’m interested in one.

Gerrit
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 06/20/2013 - 04:44
Posts: 361
Location: NL

Hoi fritz15,

I do not care about the banana, but I do love your design.

DavidEF
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 hours ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7699
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA
Enderman wrote:
fritz15 wrote:
Enderman wrote:
[…] 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.

That’s cool, would you mind sharing that function? How did you interpolate the curve?

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.

So, this will (eventually) show how much of the light from a given emitter would be collected and collimated from a given reflector size/shape?

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

EasyB
Online
Last seen: 5 min 34 sec ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2154
Location: Ohio
Enderman wrote:
fritz15 wrote:
Enderman wrote:
[…] 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.

That’s cool, would you mind sharing that function? How did you interpolate the curve?

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.

The intensity curve should be very close to cos(theta). Because apparent area goes like cos(theta).

MortyDuck
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 10/24/2016 - 11:24
Posts: 158
Location: Mo i Rana - Norway
DavidEF wrote:
Enderman wrote:
fritz15 wrote:
Enderman wrote:
[…] 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.

That’s cool, would you mind sharing that function? How did you interpolate the curve?

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.

So, this will (eventually) show how much of the light from a given emitter would be collected and collimated from a given reflector size/shape?

Yes!

Enderman is doing an incredible job with this!!

"Do to others, what you would like others do to you.."

-MortyDuck-

EasyB
Online
Last seen: 5 min 34 sec ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2154
Location: Ohio
DavidEF wrote:
Enderman wrote:
fritz15 wrote:
Enderman wrote:
[…] 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.

That’s cool, would you mind sharing that function? How did you interpolate the curve?

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.

So, this will (eventually) show how much of the light from a given emitter would be collected and collimated from a given reflector size/shape?

Yes. See here for a bit of info on this.

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.

Texas_Ace
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 9036
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

EasyB wrote:

Yes. See here for a bit of info on this.

This is what the pattern for total light contained at different angles looks like:

It is a 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.

That is very enlightening actually.

Jerommel
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 01/04/2014 - 13:18
Posts: 6380
Location: the Hague, Netherlands

Thank you EasyB, that’s a very helpful visualization.
It’s almost incredible at first sight, itś hard to believe it’s based on that circle in the average radiation diagram.
It makes it seem miraculous how well an aspheric still throws.

thijsco19
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 21 hours ago
Joined: 12/14/2012 - 16:18
Posts: 1383
Location: Nearby Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Wow, just wow.
This isn’t anymore just a thread about a thrower, this is much more! Very awesome to see everyone putting their knowledge into this, never thought that we would really calculate and figuring out all that science about reflectors and stuff.

This is really why I love BLF and it’s members.

Texas_Ace
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 9036
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

Indeed, it is nice to finally move past the cosmetics and get into actual productive work.

The Miller
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 12/14/2015 - 12:08
Posts: 9908
Location: Charente France

thijsco19 wrote:
Wow, just wow.
This isn’t anymore just a thread about a thrower, this is much more! Very awesome to see everyone putting their knowledge into this, never thought that we would really calculate and figuring out all that science about reflectors and stuff.

This is really why I love BLF and it’s members.

Yeah awesome
And it is very very cool to see that we have now calculated the reflector should be 112.5mm deep and not just blatantly upscaling the TN42 sizes. And highly impressive TN42 upscale is a tad “off” it seems so BLF has come up with better size then a pro company.
EasyB
Online
Last seen: 5 min 34 sec ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2154
Location: Ohio

The Miller wrote:
thijsco19 wrote:
Wow, just wow.
This isn’t anymore just a thread about a thrower, this is much more! Very awesome to see everyone putting their knowledge into this, never thought that we would really calculate and figuring out all that science about reflectors and stuff.

This is really why I love BLF and it’s members.

Yeah awesome
And it is very very cool to see that we have now calculated the reflector should be 112.5mm deep and not just blatantly upscaling the TN42 sizes. And highly impressive TN42 upscale is a tad “off” it seems so BLF has come up with better size then a pro company.

I don’t think there is anything special about any one particular diameter to depth ratio. As illustrated in Enderman’s pictures here , as the depth is increased the effective area increases, which increases throw, but after a certain point there stops being significant gain. The same can be said for the light collection efficiency; with roughly square dimensions the reflector is already collecting more than 75% of the light, and increasing the depth more results in only small improvements.

The reflector dimensions do affect the beam profile, so I think being able to simulate that would be helpful. Like DrJones did here:
http://budgetlightforum.com/comment/715462#comment-715462

Practically I think the 120×112mm size, or anything close to it, is fine and there won’t be significant changes to the beam unless the depth is changed drastically.

Lazy-R-us
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 09/13/2015 - 00:30
Posts: 685
Location: Carolinas, USA

The Miller wrote:

Yeah awesome
And it is very very cool to see that we have now calculated the reflector should be 112.5mm deep and not just blatantly upscaling the TN42 sizes. And highly impressive TN42 upscale is a tad “off” it seems so BLF has come up with better size then a pro company.

Without minimizing or diminishing anything you guys are doing, all of this is theoretical. Who is it that has the signature: “Theory sounds like a nice place, I’d like to go there one day, I hear everything works there.”?

Lazy-R-us