I’m not sure what you mean by the question Bob. Why would they as you asked BS? Match is a member here that has given more to this forum than most others. No one stays here forever for whatever reason. Maybe he is ill, who knows, its a fact of life in this virtual world we live in.
I personally hope Match is ok and wish him all the best.
Match’s results seem to be valid. The BS is the way some people have misconstrued or misused the data.
Match did his emitter tests on a rig that has massive amounts of heatsinking, which he discussed here.
But it seems like some people think or are trying to sell others on the idea that XML2 can be driven to 6A in a small-ish host and expect the same results as Match got on his testing rig. That would be BS.
I, for one, use Match’s numbers almost daily. I know Engineers that are designing lights that also have this page bookmarked. The numbers are good. The methodology is good. Match did some hellacious work here and a great many of us appreciate it.
If you doubt the numbers, instead of calling bullshit why don’t you do the work and show us your findings? I’m sure we would all appreciate your comprehensive skills used to enlighten us on today’s most modern technology.
Please, we would all like to see a fresh new approach. We will be anxiously awaiting your results…
Bob - you should clarify this - where's your question coming from?
+1 with Dale, but I'm not gonna get upset bout it - Match's test results represented in this thread and all the others is the "de-facto standard" of our hobby as tech ref data is concerned and nothing has, or probably will, change that.
What do you mean?
Big Success? Budgetlightforum Standard?
Do you have any idea it take how much effort to provide this data?
Will you provide some data of testing result using different method?
No prob - thinking was just a mis-understanding. Match's results may be questioned at times, but it's pretty darn good for what he or anyone had/has to work with. I myself see some things I don't understand, but I'll spectulate it's probably my testing method or result being off, more so than Match's.
One detail lacking in his original posts has been the exact bin/tint of the LED's tested, but since then. that's been clarified in later posts. I believe the XM-L2 was a U2 (Post #40), so for me, I'd be interested to see it tested the same way for a 1C vs. a 1A, for example, to know if they have identical output or not -- always has been a question in my mind... For Match, he's posted he's got to give this testing effort up - too much time and expense, and I can't blame him for that, for sure... The U2 bin has a range of output level spec'd by CREE, so I always wondered if a specific tint would be in the high range or low range, but that's getting pretty nit-picky.
I was just wandering if you would be interested in running one of your tests on the new generation SinkPad II so we can get some independent data on these? I know a guy who could send you some :)
Every aluminum star I have tested has been terribly unflat. So I have been sanding them flat and polishing to 1000grit US based on Crees recommendations in the CXA product design guide. Do you think this test would be closer with an aluminum star that has been flattened? (I have noticed that copper stars are always much closer to flat)