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.
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.
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.
The clear 10507 has a different shape directly over the emitters, including the 3 sunken holes. The frosted 10511 is completely flat on the front with no recessed holes.
The beam patterns they produce are quite different from each other. This can be immediately seen when you compare a a rouge-polished 10511 to a standard clear 10507.
Never keep quiet. You had a different understanding of how their shaped. It’s not like you were trying to deceive. And the answer that your post provoked helped me understand why the beams are different. So keep up the good work.
I’ve got two XP-L triple boards. Supposedly they are too tall to fit under a Carclo triple XP-G lens. I took a Carclo triple 10507 and placed it over one of the XP-L triples. It stops only 1-2 mm’s from fitting. This is the whole reason I thought I needed to dedome. Then I slowly pressed them together under little more than slight finger pressure. They fit, and also can be pulled apart without damaging the domes. The triple is not mounted or wired so no beam patterns were observed. Anyone see any problems with this?
I can see the optics being heated and the holes opening up under the domes pressure. Shouldn’t be an issue if it does.
I can see the domes dedoming under the heat and pressure, especially if the optics are ever removed.
Or it just all works without issue.
I said I would post this last week in another thread but couldnt remember where…
This is how I do my triple and quad XP-L’s, I take a super sharp, fine tip blade (I actually use my EDC knife- my Sebenza) and very lightly trim the inside of the bottom lip of each optic cup. Be very careful not to touch the tip of the blade to the bottom of the hollowed out dome or it will make horrible artifacts. Takes about 45seconds per individual cup. Works the same exact way on both triple and quad carlco’s.
This way the dome doesnt contact the TIR at all, ANY pressure side-to-side when the emitter is hot will rip the dome right off and if downward pressure is applied at the same time (as would be) it will tear the bond wires and destroy the LED. This method doesnt effect the beam at all and keeps the LED and optic from contacting eachother.
In this one only the right cup as been trimmed (this is for an RGBW light using color XP-E2’s but same process for a quad XP-L)
Thanks CK. It took me a fair amount of looking to be sure I was seeing exactly what was going on there. Turns out your picture is just like your written description, so no actual surprises. It just took it a while for what the picture is showing to sink in. Good info & writeup.
never saw carclo optic before.please-stupid question-if we change the typical reflector for carclo optic or tir optic,we will get brighter output or?nicer beam?or why so many change the optics?thanks