BTU Shocker Mod - XM-L2 U2's/SinkPAD's

129 posts / 0 new
Last post
relic38
relic38's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 12/28/2012 - 00:39
Posts: 3390
Location: Toronto, Canada

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:

IS DCB

Note: Both of those tests were before I reflowed the emitter to fix the bonding problem.

I haven't seen the results posted on CPF yet.

Welcome the night.

My Reviews   My Mods    http://budgetlightforum.com/search?

Hikelite
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 15 hours ago
Joined: 07/13/2011 - 16:18
Posts: 3998
Location: Honeyland

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.

 

Current  Stock  Lapped  Reflowed

2A         796       781         781 

3A        1080     1062        1075

4A        1304     1287        1322

 

http://budgetlightforum.com/node/22817

 

 

 

relic38
relic38's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 12/28/2012 - 00:39
Posts: 3390
Location: Toronto, Canada

Hikelite wrote:

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.

I disagree, you're omitting some critical data in your table; The 6A range. A DCB star's primary benefit is when the power is turned up.

CurrentStockLappedReflowed
2A796781781
3A108010621075
4A130412871322
6A158215901754

The difference at 6A is definitely not measurement tolerances.

Another mouseover:

IS DCB

Welcome the night.

My Reviews   My Mods    http://budgetlightforum.com/search?

bdiddle
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 4 days ago
Joined: 12/14/2012 - 14:36
Posts: 814

I think the lapping also shows a clear and definite decrease in temps…..which was the point :bigsmile:

Newb

Hikelite
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 15 hours ago
Joined: 07/13/2011 - 16:18
Posts: 3998
Location: Honeyland

relic38 wrote:

Hikelite wrote:

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.

I disagree, you're omitting some critical data in your table; The 6A range. A DCB star's primary benefit is when the power is turned up.

CurrentStockLappedReflowed
2A796781781
3A108010621075
4A130412871322
6A158215901754

The difference at 6A is definitely not measurement tolerances.

Another mouseover:

IS DCB

I didn't look over the 6A since it's not something I'd use efficiency wise. Consumption and heat vs lumen output I would stop at 4A.

Nightbird95
Nightbird95's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: 01/03/2013 - 01:16
Posts: 1153
Location: N 11º 08', E 124º 37'
relic38 wrote:

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:

IS DCB

Note: Both of those tests were before I reflowed the emitter to fix the bonding problem.

I haven’t seen the results posted on CPF yet.

Using copper MPCBs and with proper lapping, what’s the current needed to put the XM-L2 U2 to its highest lumens output (before it starts to decline)?

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 15065
Location: LI NY

The XM-L2 option for the Shocker are T6's though Frown.

Is it possible with a 5 amps tailcap measurement on a Shocker to get 4,500 lumens? Wink I'm think'n it is....

relic38
relic38's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 12/28/2012 - 00:39
Posts: 3390
Location: Toronto, Canada

Hikelite wrote:

I didn't look over the 6A since it's not something I'd use efficiency wise. Consumption and heat vs lumen output I would stop at 4A.

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. 

a

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)
Lumenslm/W
96174.0
184161.0
274156.3
357149.6
436143.8
510138.6
585134.4
657130.3
725126.2
793122.7
857119.2
918115.9
981113.3
1037110.2
1093107.5
1147104.8
1202102.5
1252100.0
130197.6
134995.6
139593.3
144091.4
148489.3
155288.8
159086.9
162784.8
166483.1
170181.2
173179.4
176977.8
179976.1

One more, lm/W for XM16 and std Al star:

 

XM16 lm/WAl Lm/W
174.0170.3
161.0162.3
156.3154.4
149.6147.2
143.8141.0
138.6136.4
134.4132.0
130.3126.9
126.2122.5
122.7118.4
119.2114.0
115.9110.0
113.3106.2
110.2102.5
107.598.7
104.894.9
102.591.1
100.087.6
97.683.6
95.679.9
93.375.9
91.472.3
89.368.3
88.864.6
86.960.4
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.

Welcome the night.

My Reviews   My Mods    http://budgetlightforum.com/search?

Pages