Carclo not going to make triple XP-L optics (possible group buy for custom TIR)

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:

If you're going to have them make a special run, why not just ask for XP-L with a 8 degree or 5 degree spot and get what you want?

I think you missed post #19. The reason is an estimated $15k-30k of tooling costs.

We are hoping/assuming that unfrosted triples can be made simply by omitting a step in the manufacturing process. The idea is not directly related to using XP-L emitters in a triple.

This

I wonder if other TIRs that are frosted have a tighter beam when polished.

OK, but the frosted one is the same as the clear one, except it’s frosted. I don’t get it. The same 10 degree spot, so why does everyone think it’s better? 10507 is 10 degree narrow clear and 10511 is a 10 degree narrow frosted.

They would be. Frosted is the same as using film over a reflector. It blends everything out and makes it look like a larger spot.