Cree XP-L V6 2C led, tested against XM-L2 T6 3C, edit23/7: I repeated the test and measured a dedomed XP-L

so the XP-L is a good de-doming candidate huh? is the throw much improved with de-doming as one might expect from an XP-E2 or XP-G2 de-dome?

#3 may be a better candidate than you think. DBCstm has observed that the dome does not appear to attach to the die. According to him there is actually a pocket of gas above the die!

EDIT:
Post #135 in the "Cree XP-L, XM-L performance in an XP size package" thread.

the question is then: with what led did Cree measure the bin to be V6, and the tint 2C ? Was the led dome well attached at time of measurement?

Maybe you should dedome the xml2 from the test and try what the light box says….
That would make sure if it is a xpl specific thing…

Fantastic work again djozz. Thank you. That integrated sphere you built is starting to shine on its own.

I wonder if the product development team for the XP-L was rushed to bring it to market.

+1, if you are willing to sacrifice the led and re-run both tests that is…

I'm afraid that is the way to go (I'm a lazy tester by heart, but measuring things always leads to more tests and checks :-( ). Ideally it should be a 2C tint as well, but I reckon this 3C will provide the information just as well.

Yeah. Should ideally compare 2C vs 2C or CW vs CW or 65CRI vs 65CRI, or top bin vs top bin. :p

Although the main purpose of the de-dome test would be to compare before and after so its not that important to use as similar as possible emitter.

When that is said. PM me your address if you want me to ship you a XM-L2 U2 2C mounted on 20mm Noctigon.

I've got the same results with xp-g2 few months ago(https://budgetlightforum.com/t/-/22322 post #19)):output and Vf remains the same.

Many reported that dedoming increases Vf,but this isn't true,there is no reason for that.Then I broke one gold wire and measured Vf again,and it was higher,so if you experience higher Vf-lower current after dedoming,you probably damage one of gold wires(or wire-die connection).

My theory why output remains more or less unchanged would be that more blue is converted to green,and green gives much more lm/W,so efficacy drop after dedoming isn't big as it should be. Just check out luxeon lime leds,they have over 200lm/W (2mm^2 die,85C),this is higher than cool whites.

That is an effect that I would not expect to be so high, but perhaps it simply is that high and then it could be a cause of the output not dropping (it is dropping but the drop is just not measured in lux because green counts more than blue, in simple words :-) ). it would also mean that dedoming a cool white led might not cause a lumendrop, but dedoming a more neutral led will cause a lumen drop because in that case you convert more light towards the red area, out of the region of highest 'eye-sensitivity'.

I have the impression that my luxmeter is overly sensitive to blue because the blue XP-E2 that I tested, and also the blue die of the XM-L colour give unexpected high readings. If this is true, it would make your explanation less likely.

how do so many people produce clean results, while I always struggle to do it right and there's always flaws in the materials and methods that make the results ambiguous :-( ......

Ok, I ran the dome/dedome test with the XM-L2 T6 3C I still had from the test of the OP. First thing that was not perfect was that the die had a slightly darker spot somewhere. It was not much, and I went ahead with the led:

I did a fresh voltage/output test up to 8A, and with the led still hot I went for the dedome. And apparently the led had cooled down just a bit too much, a bit of the phosfor had come off, say 3%:

Here's the dome with the bit of phosfor:

And the die at 0.5mA, if you look well you can still see the dark spot as well:

Yeah, more variables than I need: does this extra blue add to the lumen-count or will it reduce it? I have the impression that my luxmeter favors blue a bit too much, but perhaps still not as much as green. The 'blue' region of the die occupies about 3% of the die, does that matter much for the test at all? I don't know, so I just went on to the second run testing, and will just dump the results on the net for you to decide what it all means :-( :

At least the dark spot on the die did not get any larger in the course of these tests (I checked afterwards).

So... if you ignore the phosfor damage as a factor involved in the readings, dedoming gave about 10% lumen loss, and has no voltage effects (you see only one voltage curve because the two curve are completely on top of each other).

I think I may carefully assume, perhaps (*sigh*), that 3% phosfor damage could not have counted for 10% light loss on its own, so dedoming a 3C does lead to lumen-loss. The XP-L was a 2C which is cooler, and in the reasoning started by led4power in the above 2 posts, dedoming that tint could cause less lumen loss, because more light converts to the area of maxumum eye-sensitivity by the dedome.

So nothing can be ruled out for certain, jay!

Maybe.

Or not.

(Not going to try this again, can I now just go back modding some flashlights, please? ;-) )

Thank you very much djozz. I know it’s frustrating when things do not go as planned.

Thank you also for furnishing us with your raw data despite the possible problems and your frustration. At a glance your assumption looks safe to me.

This is still very useful info. Only downside I see is not using a XM-L2 U2 1A, the only XM-L2 I dedome, and seems to be the most common dedomed. I've seen de-domed 3C's and they turn a pretty strong yellow - I got a bunch laying aroung here: 3 from a someone else's modded Shocker that I had to re-mod, and one that de-domed itself in one of my lights. The roughly 10% measured drop is interesting, but suspect a U2 1A would lose a little more. I've measured close to 20% from what I recall between domed and de-domed Shockers for example, at what should have been equal everything else.

How are you dedoming your emitters?

Gas - of course! "A Perfect Dedome?" (https://budgetlightforum.com/t/-/17374) Smile. The cut/heat method works of course, it's just more prone to error for me. I could view vinh's video a 100 times and I'm still unsure exactly how's it's done, or how to be sure to get consistent results. The gas method is very consistent. Dale is bringing up some good pts about possibly less tint shift using the cut/heat method, some may say less output loss as well. Since we lack accurate data on this, it's a tough call but hopeful sign, just don't have data or a technical explanation/theory on why.

If djozz still reports a 10% lumen loss on a XML2 1A, it would make me question if the heat method yields a lower lumen loss than petrol. But we’ll see… Of course to do scientific method he’d have to use both heat and petrol to de-dome the led and measure the lumen loss on both. Unless someone else has already done the objective testing though.

I even managed a hot de-dome on a Luminus SST-50. Color is still very good, appears to my eye to have gone more white from a bit blue/white, and the beam profile has a tighter hot spot. Still not a true thrower but it’s doing quite well now (except for the mass amounts of heat it’s making at 5.6A)

That one was interesting. The die is covered with a shiny seal even under the dome. That part is still there as is the dome window frame. Might need to pry that frame off now and see if tightens up the beam a bit more…

If SST50s are anything like SST90s you can just stick a knife in between the corner of the metal frame and the dome and pry the dome out cold. It’ll come out extremely clean.

and that slew of bond wires was a bit frightening! lol
I de-domed it with the light in Turbo mode, didn’t see it release like I do the XM-L2’s it just popped out.
Is the frame glued or taped down around the die itself? Wonder if it’ll pop off? But this one is in the big TK61 and I can’t get the head off that light, so I have to work down in the hole as it were.

I know I know, this was an experiment…

Thanks djozz. More great info.

Does the texture of the 2 dedomed emitters appear different in real life? It almost looks like the xml emitter appears more "flaky", but it's too hard to tell in the pictures. Here's a mouse over (xpl mouse out).

There appears to be a difference in the number of 'dots" between the 2 emitters. The dots are also clearer on the xpl. It almost appears that there is some type of coating on the xpl.