vinz did a mod on the shocker with dedomed xml2sā¦ it was around 380-400kcd i believeā¦ it required shims and focal point adjustment to get the emitters to focus correctly
I have not seen it done yet.
The reflector design does not allow deep focus adjustments that are usually needed for dedomed emitters. The wires will probably short out on the reflector. With some serious reflector mods, you might get this to work.
Edit: OK, I stand corrected
Now the BTU shocker can come stock with XML2, just when I bought one and being told by Ric it will not be available for a long timeā¦
I hope I can replace the LEDs easily.
I have the original BTU (dry/cool white) but also have another on build order from one of the wonderful people if this forum. I think down the road I will mod my original BTU but I really need to learn a lot more on some cheaper torches first before attempting a mod on a pricey one, just to be safe. Its nice to see the option for XML2ās, although Ric doesnāt list outputs for these models. I would also be interested in knowing what sort of mounting they are using (sinkpads/copper star/alum star etc).
I have been trying to figure out how to make Rics volume price points workā¦BLF group buy instead???
Buy 5 @ $95 each.
Buy 10 @ $85 each.
I am all over the qty 5 price to one BLF member but by the time you reship USPS or UPS, youāve probably blown through $20.
Maybe Tom E would change his mind, do the emitter, driver, sinkpad etc mods and do an I-95 run one dayā¦great time to leave L.I. and see the rest of the Sound area.
Canāt wait to see what the feedback is on the new XML2 option isā¦
Ohh, I'm totally swamped!! Little time for modding in the summer and over-committed myself.
depressions under the SinkPAD's? That's from the manufacturing process, stamped to elevate the surface and keep the direct copper path in tact. Some guys think it's really bad -- I personnally think it's not that bad and doesn't seem to have any noticeable effect - basically I'm filling it with AS5 but the surrounding surface contact area probably makes up for it pretty well. Noctigons don't have that issue, but they might have a slight depression on the top emitter side that has to be filled in with solder from re-flowing. Not sure, my preference right now is the Noctigon, but again, no known proof I know of says one is better than the other - relic and CPF has some pretty good charts on this - think it shows SinkPAD's slightly better, but only one sample test piece/emitter were used, so who really knows.
The same graphs also show how lapping the IS copper pcb decreases lumen ouput, so I doubt the Sinkpad is better, it all comes to the tolerance of the testing equipment.
Yes, that blew me away - hard to make sense of that. Lots of potential issues - none of our testing methods are perfect for sure... I know for me lapping is very time consuming, but again, don't think there is any definitive proof it helps, then again on some pill surfaces, they are so uneven it makes it impossible for me to level out. Some guys have a better setup and/or equipment for sanding, so could be possible or at least easier for others.
Iām one of those who thinks the depresson is a bad idea. (but of course, I have no evidence of this.) If I were to design a star, Iād put the depressions on the other side of the board where the +ve and -ve contacts are. Iāll try to find those graphs over at the evil forum.
What graphs show lapping the IS board reduces output? Mine didn't. The graphs were virtually the same, definitely within equipment tolerances. Here's a mouseover:
Note: Both of those tests were before I reflowed the emitter to fix the bonding problem.
With all the circumstances mentioned, it's the "Test Results Data" that showed lower lumen output when lapped. You made it clear that is all in tolerance levels but it can't be denied that physically one can go on the review page and read the "Test Results Data" and see the "Lapped" ones are slightly lower.
What it is an interesting that a reflow issues does not affect the output much and if we are to take the below that into consideration it's only the equipment's sensitivity and tolerance that made the small differences.
Using copper MPCBs and with proper lapping, whatās the current needed to put the XM-L2 U2 to its highest lumens output (before it starts to decline)?
Then you would get an approx. 200 lumen gain over a standard aluminum star, based on my results. That's good, but not where direct-bonded stars really start showing their wares; after aluminum stars begin to dip the other way.
If efficiency is the goal, definitely avoid hard driven emitters, and opt for more emitters at a lower current. For example, my TF AK-90 12xXM-L delivered 3500 OTF lumens with 38 Watts input (including driver losses). That's 92 OTF lumens/Watt, which I'll say is not easy to do at 3500 lumens.
Here's a graph of lumens and lumens/Watt from the Noctigon XM16 test.
I-O Noctigon XM 16mm Star with XM-L2 U2 1C Emitter (Lapped)
Lumens
lm/W
96
174.0
184
161.0
274
156.3
357
149.6
436
143.8
510
138.6
585
134.4
657
130.3
725
126.2
793
122.7
857
119.2
918
115.9
981
113.3
1037
110.2
1093
107.5
1147
104.8
1202
102.5
1252
100.0
1301
97.6
1349
95.6
1395
93.3
1440
91.4
1484
89.3
1552
88.8
1590
86.9
1627
84.8
1664
83.1
1701
81.2
1731
79.4
1769
77.8
1799
76.1
One more, lm/W for XM16 and std Al star:
XM16 lm/W
Al Lm/W
174.0
170.3
161.0
162.3
156.3
154.4
149.6
147.2
143.8
141.0
138.6
136.4
134.4
132.0
130.3
126.9
126.2
122.5
122.7
118.4
119.2
114.0
115.9
110.0
113.3
106.2
110.2
102.5
107.5
98.7
104.8
94.9
102.5
91.1
100.0
87.6
97.6
83.6
95.6
79.9
93.3
75.9
91.4
72.3
89.3
68.3
88.8
64.6
86.9
60.4
84.8
83.1
81.2
79.4
77.8
76.1
Even in the efficacy race, Direct-bonded wins all the way past the finish line.