More New Cree Goodness coming....

Desoldering pump should do the trick.

Micro shears Just snip the tops off

Has anyone tested the 50.3 emitters in a direct drive setup yet? If so what kind of current did you get?

According to the XHP50.3 datasheet the voltage is the same as XHP50.2 except that the thermal performance of the 50.3 is significantly better so the Vf should be just slightly higher due to that.

Speaking of the thermal performance: the XHP70.3 datasheet says .2° C/W thermal resistance! And the P4 bin will be available. This sucker might hit 10,000 lumens.

That will be exciting. My L6 might need an upgrade.

I Will be buying a couple new convoys JUST to use this emitter in them. Very exciting

I don't mean to sound dumb, but are there DD drivers for 6v/12v emitters? I didn't even know this existed...

There are 3V emitters…

There are. My L6 has one for the XHP70.2. As I recall, the 6V 50s tended to roast under direct drive.

Definitely there are. We use an LDO in place of the D1 diode to knock the voltage down to run the MCU. The 7135's have a problem handling higher voltage at higher amps - I know, I smoked a few. This is why TA went with a resistor bank instead of a 7135 for the low channel -- works excellent with 6V designs, like he did for the BLF GT70 and others. I believe there are other 6V high output FET designed drivers as well.

I miraculously have a 7135 working in my L6 but haven’t been able to replicate the experience in my SP70 - have blown a few, they all failed wide open interestingly. In the L6 the behavior is weird though, the 7135 channel is dimmer the higher the battery (input) voltage. Funny when fresh cells give a super-dim moonlight but when they’re low I can’t look directly at it anymore!

Poor little chip :cry:

Haha it will be a sad day when it quits on me!

Thanks for the advice i ended up using a razor blade, i tried to put one of the XHP50.3 HI in a C8 and i shorted it and killed the boost driver sigh. Its not a great design for flashlights those few extra mm on a normal MCPCB really help. My solder joints where really low but i put tape on the reflector to be safe and the solder undone the tape lol. I also had a really low LED gasket in place and thickish gauge wire. I will reflow the LED onto another MCPCB.

On another note first time i have bought brand name solder and its great, a hardware store here is selling Weller solder 100g 1mm thick for like $10, on par with what i would pay from China for no name stuff. The solder joint was so shiny amazing stuff lol.

Will the XHP70.3 allow flashlights to have better sustained brightness than the XHP70.2 ?

A newer generation of the same emitter family usually results in a modest increase in efficiency, so yes, though not necessarily enough to care about.

According to the datasheets when comparing, the .3 does a little better with heat - drops less voltage per degree C, and thermal resistance at the junction is a little lower. Probably not enough to be noticeable. The .3 is available in P4 bin though, getting more lumens for free (no extra amps or heat), but again, low, maybe about 7% bump from P2. The Vf hasn't changed, so it should work well with existing drivers.

The biggest reason for 70.2 lights not having sustained brightness is the driver design and overall flashlight design. Because the LED is capable of high amps, high output, it's usually pushed hard in the design.

Thanks. There are some XHP70.2 lights with good sustained brightness - Convoy M21C/D, Acebeam E70, Thrunite T2. Just interested to know if there will be any improvements with the XHP70.3.

Simon from Convoy has P4 3A binned xhp70.2. At least that’s what he told me, when I asked.

Where everybody talks about efficiency of .3, i’m more interested in having no ugly yellow corona around hotspot. That’s my sole interest in these emitters. Other specs cannot be worse than it was on previous gen.