[REVIEW] Acebeam W10. 1KM of throw, in your front pocket. 21700/18650, USB-C charging.

100 posts / 0 new
Last post
djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 33 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 18291
Location: Amsterdam
Thumbs Up
Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4292
Location: Vancouver, Canada

CarpentryHero wrote:

The spill of a beam is the light that hits the inside of the head, so why are you saying no? I’ll reword it one more time. Your Wavian collar, collects the light, aims it at the lens. Preventing waste, in essence projecting it onto the lens.
So please stop saying it doesn’t. You are redirecting output so less is wasted, I don’t no why you keep disagreeing then rewording it. Makes me feel like I’m dyslexic up in here.

It’s definitely more efficient then using a small aspheric lens close to the led, then a second one for final focus. It’s doing the same job just more efficiently. If you don’t believe me that’s fine, it’s an idea someone much smarter than me came up with close to a decade ago.


1) “spill” is light that comes out of a flashlight without hitting a forward-facing reflector. A lens flashlight has no spill regardless of whether you use a collar or not. The light hitting the inside of the head is not spill because it does not exit the lens.

2) The collar reflects light back at the LED, not at the lens.

The entire point of the wavien collar is that it does not aim any light at the lens.
This is why the lumen output can increase without making the spot larger (which is what a secondary lens does) and more lumens + same area = higher intensity

I think you simply don’t understand what the terms mean, that’s all, not your fault.

Agro
Agro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 40 min ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 6967
Location: Ślōnsk

The_Driver wrote:
Enderman wrote:
Hi, I made the Lightcanon and the Optofire Smile
They don’t use double aspheric, they use a single aspheric and a wavien collar.
Only one focusing point.
The collar reflects unused light back at the LED, so the same focal point as before.

Something like this uses a double aspheric: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?422036-Mj%F6lnir-Cust...
The double aspheric system does not increase lux, it increases lumens.

The small lens (we call it “pre-collimator”) needs to be spherical, not aspherical. That is how Vinz always did it. I have also had a light made using such a second lens. It works great for the focused mode but makes the defossused mode a bit more ugly.


Yeah, I have further concerns about that test….which may be because I hardly know anything about optics. But for me the superiority of single lens optics is just not clear…
  • is it optimal to have both lenses of the same power?
  • is it optimal to have both lenses of the same size?
  • A single lens with F#=x wins over 2 lenses with F#=x which in turn win over 1 lens with F#=.5x. But how about 2 lenses with F#=2x? Wouldn’t they win over a single lens?

The_Driver
The_Driver's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 17 min ago
Joined: 10/20/2016 - 05:51
Posts: 1469
Location: Germany

The pre-collimator needs to be large enough to cover the entire LED and have the lowest possible focal length. This way it collects the most light. The main lens need to have a short enough focal length in relation to its diameter to collect all of this light (so a low F-number). You could calculate that or just try out different lenses.

LouieAtienza
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: 11/17/2018 - 15:15
Posts: 593
Location: New York

Enderman wrote:
Agro wrote:
Thank you The_Driver!

Volume, not diameter. Multi-emitter reflectors are much shallower than single emitter ones of the same diameter.

Could you please name that companies?


Multi-emitter reflectors also have a lot of wasted area, which is why they are usually bad at throw.
One of the companies is cryphosphor, the other I cant remember but was way more expensive, you can find it by reading the research papers on single crystal phosphors, the universities state where they got their samples from.

For laser, if the color of the light were not a primary issue, wouldn’t a Galilean type lens setup work to expand the beam? I think Wicked Lasers made an attachment for their Arctic.

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4292
Location: Vancouver, Canada

LouieAtienza wrote:

For laser, if the color of the light were not a primary issue, wouldn’t a Galilean type lens setup work to expand the beam? I think Wicked Lasers made an attachment for their Arctic.


That’s for expanding laser beams, not for expanding the lambertian white light coming from the phosphor.
You don’t want to expand the laser, you want to focus it to a point on the phosphor.
EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2250
Location: Ohio

Enderman wrote:
LouieAtienza wrote:

For laser, if the color of the light were not a primary issue, wouldn’t a Galilean type lens setup work to expand the beam? I think Wicked Lasers made an attachment for their Arctic.


That’s for expanding laser beams, not for expanding the lambertian white light coming from the phosphor.
You don’t want to expand the laser, you want to focus it to a point on the phosphor.

I think he’s saying if you don’t care if it’s white light you could just use an expanded laser beam which would have very high intensity.

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4292
Location: Vancouver, Canada

EasyB wrote:

I think he’s saying if you don’t care if it’s white light you could just use an expanded laser beam which would have very high intensity.


Oh well yeah, but this is a flashlight we’re talking about here.
Of course you can expand a laser beam to get even more throw.
There are plenty of people that have done that on the internet.
LouieAtienza
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: 11/17/2018 - 15:15
Posts: 593
Location: New York

Enderman wrote:
EasyB wrote:

I think he’s saying if you don’t care if it’s white light you could just use an expanded laser beam which would have very high intensity.


Oh well yeah, but this is a flashlight we’re talking about here.
Of course you can expand a laser beam to get even more throw.
There are plenty of people that have done that on the internet.

The point I was trying to get at was, if the primary intent is to paint a target, a blue laser diode already has a beam distance of some 6.2 miles without a beam expander. My thought was to just use optics to decrease the rectangular shape (using cylindrical lenses) then widen the beam with further optics. Which would be far easier, and have a lot less losses, than exciting some phosphor. It just won’t be white.

I had always wanted a pocket light that could throw a long distance, just because…. And have some ideas of my own how to do it. But when I get to try these out is a while out as I have other projects.

Pages