Yes, the HX. I really get lost with the Osram model names.
SkyLumen was the first to use the WF1/2/1.1/2.1 name format AFAIK, and honestly it makes a lot of sense IMO. I have to look up the actually model numbers half the time I see people discussing them to remember which is being referenced.
I was asking because I didn’t know anyone still had HLs for sale. I’ve been looking for one for since LED4P went oos and Osram obsoleted the model. I’ll get one before they’re gone…
Also, if Hank is calling them W2.1, that would be opposite naming convention from what I am familiar with. Typically (Vin/Skylumen), the ‘.1’ extension indicates the newer/upgraded 4040 package, while the W (n) still denotes the emitting surface area. So the HL would be a W1.1 in Vin shorthand, and HX= W2.1
Seems like Hanks naming convention is different, which will add to the confusion with these letter soup Osrams.
There's no "if Hank", Hank is. I've included the link to where he does it couple times - here it is again: https://intl-outdoor.com/led-flashlights/k1-21700-thrower-led-flashlight.html
Been look'n at the Skylumen site and found a W1.1 ref: https://skylumen.com/collections/v54-lights/products/one-off-olights, where he identifies the W1.1 as the max throw version
And here's a W2.1 ref: https://skylumen.com/collections/v54-lights/products/one-off-l17vn-the-tactical-mc13vn
Of course he doesn't say what these LED's are, that I can find.
On BLF, Hank and his lights are far more popular than Vinh (sheer volume) so I'd stick with Hank's, unless Hank can be convinced to change his naming convention.
Yeap, Vinh has limited audience where Hank is widely known so yes, i agree with Tom.
Adding bypassed wire at the spring on somebody else’s design doesn’t make you refference in this business.
TomE, I don’t know why it seems I’m rubbing you the wrong way and if I did, I apologize. I’m not challenging you, Hank, Vinh, nor anyone. I’m trying to clarify where there are differences, both in my understanding, and among greater BLF. I’m sorry if my familiarity and opinion that another naming convention is/was more popular seems confrontational.
Personally, I have no problem remembering or typing out full Osram model numbers. Shorthand is merely a convenience. If it starts to cause more confusion that the longform, then it’s not worth it IMO.
id30209, while I have personal feelings that seem to reflect yours about the parties we are discussing, I think it’s fair to acknowledge that in the early days of 4040 white flats, Vinh was one of the exclusive sources of these emitters and lights equipped with them. Not until the K1/KR1 was there any whisper of these emitters in Hanks main thread. In fact, searching that thread for either w1.1 or w2.1 only returns one post by SKV89 from May 2020. I can trace back the W1.1 on CPF/Vinh as far as August 2019.
Searching all of BLF for “w2.2” only yields a handful of hits besides here. All are from Sept/Oct 2020 except one by Agro which may have been a typo as he changed it to w2.1 at some point (original frozen in time by the quote in the following post) Ironically here, I was one of the few to ever write w.2.2 back in Sept 2020 , and I’d like to say it was a error as well that got away from me, but I used that” two times”:Lume1-FW3X: Constant Current Buck-Boost & FET Driver with Anduril1/2 + RGB Aux - #368 by JaredM in that thread, albeit only 11hrs apart.
Again, I’m really, honestly not trying to ruffle feathers. I’ve added to the confusion myself as I just pointed out in the previous paragraph. id30209 also has acknowledged the W2.1= Boost HX in the Convoy thread not too long ago. Now that I’ve spent a bit of time playing etymologist, it’s fair for me to say there isn’t a widely accepted standard on BLF and we all can get confused by these alpha numerics at times.
Going forward, I’m probably going to stick to the full names of these emitters.
Cheers everyone!
@JaredM
Neven from L4P had W2.1 and 1.1 way before Vinh...
Later on they showed up in Vietnamese groups and so on. Only this year they became more available.
No no, nothin meant. All's good 
Just being obsessed bout trying to figure this naming mess out, not to mention features. I checked my inventory and I got like 5 W1's, which I regret not using. Sure looks like the Boost HL makes the W1 obsolete - more lumens and seems like more throw, though not sure that's been proven.
I think we (or me) should ask Hank where he got it - may have been done wrong. Could be since Chinese is written right to left, the rev "2" is to the left of the part #, being 1 or 2.
Cross post*
I am unaware of what happened before they started showing up in mod threads, so thanks for the info. I want to be clear that in my individual experience, aforementioned cpf threads were the first place I knew of those nicknames becoming popular.
But is there agreement that there are now two similar, but different, naming conventions for this series of emitters? Right or wrong isn’t the question, it’s just that W2.1 now can mean either Boost HL (hank) or HX (neven/vinh).
Yep, totally agree bout the 2 differing naming conventions.
That name OSRAM used - "OSTAR Projection Compact" was ridiculous.
The 4040's at least have clear, well defined short names now - Boost HL and Boost HX, so maybe we should just stick with those.
The HL definitely seems to have an advantage by a solid 5-10% over the 3030 1mm². But that really only shows up at the very top end of the current range. I’d use the 3030s in triple or quad setups personally. I really want to get a D4Sv2 and try these under an Angie. In that application, I’d bet there’s a negligible difference.
I’m really surprised no one has published output comparisons of the HX vs 3030 2mm2. I know djozz had some unpublished testing that didn’t show any improvement. I’ve only read handful of mods with HXs, of which most seem to not show a major advantage. Some of those were from questionable sources like the Yinding AE store… I Really want to see how samples from Hank and Simon stack up.
I recently gained access to a multichannel Agilent DAQ and a 20A-8V / 10A-20V power supply. If I can build find time to scrap together a solid test fixture, I’d gladly setup some testing of my own. I also have access to a FLIR camera and a uv through nir spectrometer, if I want to get fancy. Time and money is tight this year so who’s knows if I’ll get around to it.
With the multivhannel DAQ, I could easily capture Vf, Tj, heatsink temp and current with fast sweeps. This could allow me to capture data that minimizes thermal bottlenecks from things like sub-optimal reflow and a relatively small heatsink. For example, I could write a script to ramp up 1A/s until lumens max out (starting at rt), followed by a pid that finds a current that saturates the sink/mcpcb at say 50C, sweeps again, 80C, etc.
Yeah there have been people talking about building and buying lights with the new gen Osram emitters that probably aren’t even aware of Emisar-Noctigon. Hank just chose a naming scheme that is way, way easier to understand and memorize than Osram’s product IDs.
My $0.02… GF2 for the green light version, YF2, for yellow, etc. would make sense for the sake of not having to memorize or look up the specific codes too! …and yes, I know “white flat” comes from the pad color rather than the light emitted but this would make sense since the original “WF” is the white light version anyway.
Vinh’s naming convention makes more sense than Hank’s, but who are we to say. W1.1 for the CULNM1.tg and W2.1 for the CULPM1.tg
Huh? Their naming conventions are the same…
The “.1” simply denotes 4x4mm pad versions. For hotrod flashlight use that larger thermal pad should be an advantage (although that depends heavily on what bins people have access to based on some of the tests of the CU- emitters here recently).
This is how it looks:
4040 Part # Name size vinh Hank
CULNM1.tg Boost HL 1 mm² W1.1 W2.1
CULPM1.tg Boost HX 2 mm² W2.1 W2.2
Oh my, it was a mess before and now it’s even worse 
It would be best of one side switched their naming but I doubt it will happen because this would confuse their existing customers.
Vinh’s lights are far less popular but not rare enough to be disregarded. And he used the naming for a longer time, so there are quite a few mentions around.
I strongly suggest using neither Vinh nor Hank naming. Or at very least making it clear which is being used, i.e. Hank-W2.1. Even in the case of Hank-W2.2 - that’s because even if the name has a singular meaning now, Vinh may want to use it eventually.
The more I consider it, I think the nick names should be dropped altogether. Boost HL and Boost HX are clear enough and brief. Funny, we are on the 3rd generation of these LED's already.
I'm more concerned about the lack of knowledge of them here. Hank rates the K1 with the HL as more throw than the HX (650 kcd vs. 600 kcd), but that's just one data point, and we don't know what the amps and lumens are. I think these #'s are higher than the W1 and W2, but I'm not sure now, since Hank took those options down.
I think they used to be 550 and 500kcd for the cslnm1 and cslpm1, respectively? Or maybe I’m making things up? I’m not certain
Wow I completely missed that, assumed the “W2.1” he listed was the CULPM1.TG until now and that there was a “W1.1” listed as well still. Yeah Hank’s nomenclature makes little sense IMHO.