The part of the TIR below the horizontal line. To make it do otherwise would require two objects occupying the same space at the same time and I don't think our technology has progressed to that point yet.
Gosh that’s little to nothing.
Are you saying you can shave part of the TIR bottom off and remove the need to dedome an XP-L to fit under an xpg2 TIR?
That's a huge amount to remove on such a tiny lens. I've cut and chopped and mutilated lots of these things, and doing that would severely alter the beam. I've experimented with both shortening the legs and extending them and shaving that bottom part of the cone to let the lens sit lower. It doesn't work. Some things you can do to them with little effect and some things destroy them. Messing with any part of it down around the LED opening is one of the things that destroys them.
I think that de-doming a led, allows a lot of light to get out from under the center hole. Those three ups sit up off the die face a little. That light gets out around the outside of the cone, especially on a three up, where there is some thin areas between the three cones. It has to go out and it's not focused, so it makes for a much larger beam. Same with a bigger die. The hole has to be sized for the die, so that the majority of the light goes up and out that center. Light is still going to get out around it and with a small hole and big die, you get a much less pronunced spot.
If you shorten a TIR at the bottom and sit it down on the die face, the beam starts looking more like an aspheric that is partly focused. So the depth of the center hole and the taper, plus the diameter, in relation to the die size, all have an effect, but I still think they could make a 20mm three-up, using a larger hole and steeper cone, so that the overall diameter stays within 20mm.
It's just my thoughts, but not based on anything more than playing around with TIR optics for a while. I maybe all wet. Been there before, will be again.
All the the Carclo 3-up parts except the 10507 have an inverted dome that nearly touches the XP-size dome, only the 10507 has a flat roof above the LED.
So I'm guessing why they specifically mentioned the 10507 in their reply. But I still think enlarging the hole would ruin the beam, even worse than the huge die & huge dome on the XP-L.
Actually I requested the 10507 as it was the least floody optic I think (could be wrong.)
I wondered would he responded differently had I not specified the 10507 (probably not, considering he wants 5 figures to make one)
Let's put this up on Kickstarter. Do a nice video or make it funny and those idiots will fund anything.
10507 is like a mule, but with a restrictor to block out any spill. It's a 'spot' lens. 10511 (after polishing) has something resembling a center hotspot, and normal amount of spill.
The resulting beam pattern may look like that, but the efficiency numbers seem to indicate that the output is not being achieved in the way you describe. ~90% efficiency doesn’t sound like a restrictor blocking spill, it sounds like efficient TIR bringing everything it can OTF. No?
If you compare a 20mm triple XP or Nichia with a 20mm single XM it’s pretty easy to see that the single has a tighter beam and since a 20mm single XP is tighter than a 20mm single XM it would be a difficult proposition to design a 20mm triple XM that had a very tight beam. I think it could be noticeably better than a mule but you won’t get there by mutilating an XP triple. It needs to be redesigned with a larger center hole and reshape the inverted dome to focus the larger XM die. Most of the light is emitted in a ~130 degree cone so the loss at the base is less of a problem than having the wrong shape in the rest of the optic and widening the base of the TIR would either steepen the sides or shorten the depth. I’m in favor of trying things just on principle but in this case I’m thinking the gains will be minimal. Not zero but maybe not worth a huge investment. I certainly don’t think it’s possible for an optic designed for a domed triple XP-L to focus better than an XP-g optic on a dedomed triple XP-L though it should have higher lumen numbers. Maybe that makes it worthwhile, I don’t know.
Make sure you mention graphene a few times…wooo!
Yes, I just mean what it looks like on the wall/in use. Lots of people seem to have gotten the impression the 10507 is the 'throwiest' of the TIRs... it's far from that. It's just a big fat circle that's the same intensity from the center out to the cutoff. Like a mule with a restrictor on it! ;)
I've not seen a TIR that gave a defined hot spot, with a little spill. They are more like Comfy says. Some type of spot, but it blends out to be just one large beam. That's what they are designed for. They are not really for spotlights. They are for indoor use and they do direct light better than an incandescent does. They do make a spot, but it's not harsh like a reflector, it's more mellow and even. They do what they are intended for, but we try to make them do what they are not intended for.
The 10511 comes with the front face frosted, and in stock form does have a very large fluffy center spot as you'd expect with a frosted TIR. But if you polish it with jeweler's rouge, it turns into something along the lines of a domed XML2 in a 17-18mm OP reflector.
This is the 10507. It's the clear one I always use. The center holes, (from the bottom side), are straight wall and flat up inside. The top holes are straight wall, but are shaped more like an aspheric inside. That way the lens sort of works like an aspheric and produces the beam the way it does. Kind of like a de-focused aspheric lens, which looks like a controlled mule.
Agreed. a front-face polished 10511 produces the best beam pattern by far of any of the Carclo triple optics.
I wonder if Carclo will sell us 10511 optics without the frosting? Is the frosting a final step that they could just omit from a batch sold to BLF? if that’s the case, then there might not be any need for tooling costs.
This won’t help with the problem of fitting an XPL inside, but could produce a more pleasing beam than polishing with jeweler’s rouge.
Thanks. I’ve only tried the “narrow spot” optics myself, laboring under the impressions you described. I don’t have a 10511 but I will now proceed to get one and try that out! Have you found that this also applies to the 20mm optics?
Hmm. Sounds legit, I doubt that the frosting is part of the mold.
I like the idea of the 10511 without the frosting. Anyone know what is the difference in dome height between the XPG2 and the XPL? I had entertained the idea of printing or shaping from small plastic tubing some extensions that would place the optic at the correct distance. Could we do an order of 10511s without frosting and slightly longer legs?
Comfychair, you wrote about experimenting with extending the legs of triple optics and there were issues. What were the problems that you encountered?
The optic doesn’t just hover over the dome, there is a hole in the bottom that the dome must enter. If the dome isn’t enveloped by the optic, you aren’t going to get the desired result.
If someone wants to check with Carclo and do a group buy of 10511 optics without the frosting, I’d be in for a bunch! :bigsmile: