XP-L vs XM-L2 OTF Tests

86 posts / 0 new
Last post
Billy X
Billy X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 week ago
Joined: 02/03/2013 - 05:50
Posts: 557
Location: South of France
I’ve been looking at the Cree spec sheets and come to some conclusions,while drinking 6 cans of Pelforth blonde(x% error Beer )For the XP-L and XM-L2 emitters,the binning is the same,all at 85°c,T4 is 240-259 lm,T5 is 260 to 279lm,T6 is 280 to 299lm,U2 is 300 to319lm,U3 is 320 to 339lm…V6 is 480 to 499lm _but_the XM-L2’s are measured at 700mA and the XP-L’s at 1050mA,50% higher current.

The Cree data sheet for XM-L2’s give min lumen flux at 1,1.5 and 2 amps,the XP-L’s for 1.5,2 and 3 amps.Extrapolating the XP-L V4 from 440 lm min at 1050mA gives 420 lm min at 1000mA.The XM-L2 U2,at 1000mA, has 412 lm min.So XP-L V4=XM-L2 U2.The V5 has 460 lm min at 1050mA,438 lm at 1000mA,XM-L2 U3 has 439 lm min at 1000mA,data not there for U3 so assume same efficiency drop with current rise as U2.V5=U3.So what is a XP-L V6 equivalent?XM-L2 U4 or XM-L3 I want a V6 :bigsmile:

DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20733
Location: Heart of Texas

Billy, maybe 6 more cans of Pelforth blonde will enlighten you and then you can share with us the final results of your query…

But first…. answer this riddle

If you spell coast C*O*A*S*T
and you spell boast B*O*A*S*T
What do you put in the toaster?

Legolas Jr.
Legolas Jr.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 13 hours ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 21:55
Posts: 883
Location: Springport, IN

I figured it out! I figured it out! I’m so proud of myself… :bigsmile:
If a blue house has blue bricks, and a red house has red bricks, what color bricks does a green house have? Wink

“Strive to be a warrior and a scholar. Be forged in fire and tempered by knowledge. If not, you will either lack the courage to fight for your ideals or lack ideals worth fighting for.”

DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20733
Location: Heart of Texas

I suppose almost any colored brick could be used to smash the glass of a greenhouse…

Legolas Jr.
Legolas Jr.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 13 hours ago
Joined: 09/17/2013 - 21:55
Posts: 883
Location: Springport, IN

DBCstm wrote:
I suppose almost any colored brick could be used to smash the glass of a greenhouse…
:bigsmile:

“Strive to be a warrior and a scholar. Be forged in fire and tempered by knowledge. If not, you will either lack the courage to fight for your ideals or lack ideals worth fighting for.”

baterija
baterija's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 2 months ago
Joined: 03/25/2010 - 03:06
Posts: 223
Hikelite wrote:
>As we know the min. max. difference is about 6% from the least bright T6 to the most bright T6 (as an example). A much higher difference than that should be put on the lightmeter’s accuracy levels, various temperature factors, etc.
 

..or the Cree measurement error in binning. One the datasheet they state “Cree maintains a tolerance of ±7% on flux and power measurements.” That’s an error in binning basically the size of a one bin step. Even before any errors produced in testing by an end user that nominal T6 could be putting out low T5 or high U2 output when it shipped.

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 18 min ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 14940
Location: LI NY

"Cree maintains a tolerance of ±7% on flux and power measurements." - this is so CYA all the way. If you were CREE and dominant a market as they do, you can get away with pretty much anything. This reminds me of our touch screen vendor at work. Get the things out in the field for a few months, and customers have to touch the displays harder and harder. Send back a bunch of returned pieces to the vendor for testing, and they say all are within spec -- duh, the spec's tolerance is so big, it's useless! So, field service tells the customer to roll your finger - make contact with the finger nail and it works fine... This is not a solution, so aggravating...

Billy X
Billy X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 week ago
Joined: 02/03/2013 - 05:50
Posts: 557
Location: South of France

 

Lumens XM-L/XP-L
 1 amp1.5 amp2 amp
T5357502631
T6385541679
V3404566708
U2412580728
V4423593742
U3439617777
V5443620776
V6462645809

   All data recalculated from Cree XM-L2 and XP-L data sheets.Minimum lumens from CW with 85°c junction temp and Cree 7% + or - tolerance.T and U bin are XM-L2,V bin are XP-L.

  The XP-L V3 bin sits between XM-L2 T6 and U2.The U3 and V5 bin are effectively the same.

  The V6 bin is ahead on it's own,one bin higher than the highest,and still rare,XM-L2 U2 bin.

  What's not to shout about,it's the new highest bin emitter from Cree.

    I'm still practicing formats,sorry it is not easier on the eye.

Hikelite
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 1 week ago
Joined: 07/13/2011 - 16:18
Posts: 3888
Location: Honeyland

Billy X, I already posted the images from PCT.CREE.COM  for comparing the same current on XP-L V6 vs XM-L2 U3, XP-L V5 vs XM-L2 U2, XP-L V4 vs XM-L2 T6 all at 25C, check the previous pages on this thread.

Billy X
Billy X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 week ago
Joined: 02/03/2013 - 05:50
Posts: 557
Location: South of France

Hikelite,it was your post,along with the OP graph that got me trying to match up XM-L2 and XP-L bins.

Hikelite said

Is this the first test showing that CREE was not exaggerating their ratings for the XP-L LED?

They have never done that, so that is why my question was, why would they do it now?

Nice test pflexpro!

 There it is.

baterija
baterija's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 2 months ago
Joined: 03/25/2010 - 03:06
Posts: 223

I got a little motivated by Selfbuilt’s excellent analysis of the L3 Illuminations L10 on CPF so I brushed off some old and very basic statistics.

The graph we have only shows means for the two types of emitters tested. Without the standard deviation for the XM-L2 and XP-L a t-test isn’t possible. I decided to make up SD for both to redresh myself on a t-test and now I am sharing. My absolutely wild as guess for SD was based on 1.5% of the mean for each tested emitter. I took the lowest SD from selfbuilt’s analysis as a percentage of it’s mean (XP-G2 on high) and just divided it by two. I believe it’s a very conservative assumption. Still I want to say this is a giant assumption given the lack of raw data to compute the variance.

I used the mean for each emitter type at 30 seconds, the assumptions for SD, and samples sizes of 2 and did a simple t-test computation (alpha=.05, 2 degrees of freedom, two tail test). More information on what I did is in selfbuilt’s CPF review and all around the net. I leave the rest to the reader who wants to torture themselves. What I found…

There is not a statistically significant difference between the output of the XM-L2 U2 1D and the XP-L V5 2A in the data from these tests (again given my SWAG assumption about variance.) Standard deviation would need to be even lower than I assumed (given that all the other data need is known) to find a likely difference.

DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20733
Location: Heart of Texas

Long way around saying “I don’t know.”

baterija
baterija's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 2 months ago
Joined: 03/25/2010 - 03:06
Posts: 223

DBCstm wrote:
Long way around saying “I don’t know.”

For three words I’d go “no proven difference” as a summary.
DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20733
Location: Heart of Texas

No proven difference may be flattering, but when one must take “Wild as guesses” and “giant assumptions” then the truth is, you just don’t know. And that, my friend, is usually a good time to stay silent.

A lot of people read these threads, and a great many of those are trying to learn. So wild guesses and assumptions to base a theory of standard deviation is just blatantly wrong and misleading. No offense intended, but without a series of tests to establish facts it’s truly just guesswork.

Ever since the XP-L came out, people have been trying to prove that it’s better (or worse) than the XM-L2. It’s different. And the same. It does pretty much the same thing, with the ability to fit more dies in the same area, thereby achieving Cree’s target goal for array’s and such use. For us? (flashaholics) This small footprint allows us to put the big die where it previously wouldn’t fit. And in that instance, it’s very much appreciated.

The XP-L V5 2A has enabled 3129 lumens in my new Sinner Ti XC with the use of one 18650. And 2960 lumens from a small all copper Sinner Cypreus, from a single 18350 cell. They’ve enabled a AA MiniMag to make 1663 lumens with 3.7A from a Qlite. 921 lumens from a single 10440 cell in a 3” custom Ti light. As far as I’m concerned, this is a win all the way around. Not one of these lights can use the bigger substrate of the XM-L2. Not in the configuration that yields these results. Standard Deviation be danged.

Edit: The Ti XC is using a Carclo 10511 TIR Optics, polished. The Cypreus a 10507. The AA MiniMag is using a quad. All these utilized de-domed XP-L emitters.

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 18083
Location: Amsterdam

The output of statistics more often than not is the same as what we thought already, but it really is a valid way to be more certain about uncertainties. The problem is that people are notoriously bad in dealing with uncertainties, and therefore with the outcome of statistics. 

That said, if statistics is applied to unsufficient data, it does not magically make it good data. it can only make it look good :bigsmile:

18sixfifty
18sixfifty's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 month ago
Joined: 12/25/2012 - 20:19
Posts: 4161

Thanks for the review, seems consistent with one bin higher.

I’m a junky, I mod lights so I can sell lights so I can buy more light to mod so I can sell lights to buy more lights to mod.

Windsurf
Windsurf's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 4 days ago
Joined: 08/22/2014 - 15:27
Posts: 343
Location: Boston, MA
JohnnyMac wrote:

Good to know.  Thanks for sharing that info! Smile

Would you mind repeating throw using the XM-L reflector on the XP-L pill?  Many who do this will have XM-L reflectors since they are far more common and easier to get.

Where can I get some XM-L SMO reflectors? The ones I bought from Solarforce don’t fit their XM-L or XM-L2 drop ins.

how2
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 06/01/2010 - 10:26
Posts: 2489
Location: london

Windsurf wrote:
JohnnyMac wrote:

Good to know.  Thanks for sharing that info! Smile

Would you mind repeating throw using the XM-L reflector on the XP-L pill?  Many who do this will have XM-L reflectors since they are far more common and easier to get.

Where can I get some XM-L SMO reflectors? The ones I bought from Solarforce don't fit their XM-L or XM-L2 drop ins.

 

For the P60?

http://www.fasttech.com/category/1617/diy-kits-parts-reflectors/

wight
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 11/27/2013 - 16:40
Posts: 4969
Location: Virginia, USA

how2 wrote:

Windsurf wrote:
JohnnyMac wrote:

Good to know.  Thanks for sharing that info! Smile

Would you mind repeating throw using the XM-L reflector on the XP-L pill?  Many who do this will have XM-L reflectors since they are far more common and easier to get.

Where can I get some XM-L SMO reflectors? The ones I bought from Solarforce don’t fit their XM-L or XM-L2 drop ins.

 

For the P60?

http://www.fasttech.com/category/1617/diy-kits-parts-reflectors/

Offhand I would not assume that these reflectors will fit Solarforces’s drop-ins. IIRC the dropins they use are slightly special. You might have to build a new dropin. If you tear the SF dropin down, be careful to remove the retaining ring, the driver is soldered into it from the inside. Pressing it out from the top through the wire holes will almost certainly destroy the driver.

Still fine, still on a break. One day I’ll catch up with you folks! previous wight catchup Wink
list of my drivers & variants (A17DD, FET+1 stuff, WIP stuff, etc)

Windsurf
Windsurf's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 4 days ago
Joined: 08/22/2014 - 15:27
Posts: 343
Location: Boston, MA

pflexpro wrote:
Here’s data for the XP-L with an XML reflector:

xpg reflector 248m
xml reflector 241m

The hot spot from each is almost identical in size…the XPG reflector gives the hot spot a hard, well defined edge. With the XML reflector, the hot spot has a softer edge. Both hot spots are good, but the XPG reflector has a little more throw than the XML reflector.

Thanks for this data. Solarforce just released their XP-L drop in with an OP reflector. I have been considering getting one except if there is little difference in Lux or throw then I will stick with the slightly cheaper XM-L2. I also prefer a well defined hot spot. If there is no difference between the two except for the reflector that again tells me to stick with the XM-L2. I originally thought the XP-L was a stronger replacement for the XP-G2 so it would have dramatically more lumens and much more throw, ie a tighter hotspot and greater distance. So from your data I have to ask Cree why did you make the XP-L? if it is just a slightly stronger XM-L2?

Hikelite
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 1 week ago
Joined: 07/13/2011 - 16:18
Posts: 3888
Location: Honeyland

The XP-L that Solarforce use is a weak one, it is V3, you have 3 bins over that, V4, V5, V6.

They made the XP-L so that the same die can be sold on multiple packages, for indoor illumination throw does not matter.

Windsurf
Windsurf's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 4 days ago
Joined: 08/22/2014 - 15:27
Posts: 343
Location: Boston, MA
Hikelite wrote:

The XP-L that Solarforce use is a weak one, it is V3, you have 3 bins over that, V4, V5, V6.

They made the XP-L so that the same die can be sold on multiple packages, for indoor illumination throw does not matter.

Yes but the Solarforce have two great features even if they are not the strongest bin. One, they have a great voltage spread (2.7V – 9.0V) so I can use a variety of battery configuratioons, and two, they are relatively cheap $16.99.

Solarforce is one of the few host makers that allow me to chose different battery configurations. Most drop in/flashlight makers see their products used with only one battery configuration so their voltage input spread is quite narrow. I wish more companies would make a larger input voltage spread.

Windsurf
Windsurf's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 4 days ago
Joined: 08/22/2014 - 15:27
Posts: 343
Location: Boston, MA

[/quote]

 

For the P60?

http://www.fasttech.com/category/1617/diy-kits-parts-reflectors/

[/quote] Offhand I would not assume that these reflectors will fit Solarforces’s drop-ins. IIRC the dropins they use are slightly special. You might have to build a new dropin. If you tear the SF dropin down, be careful to remove the retaining ring, the driver is soldered into it from the inside. Pressing it out from the top through the wire holes will almost certainly destroy the driver.[/quote]

I agree each reflector has to be measured. I want to ask RMM @ Mountain to measure his SMO reflectors except they are out of stock so I have to wait until he get a new batch in stock.

chouster
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 02/20/2014 - 15:05
Posts: 746
Location: germany

I like that UI of these Solarforce drop-ins. Resets back to high after beeing off for longer than 2 seconds. Best UI for mechanical clicky if you ask me.

RMM
RMM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: 07/23/2013 - 13:47
Posts: 4006
Location: USA

chouster wrote:
I like that UI of these Solarforce drop-ins. Resets back to high after beeing off for longer than 2 seconds. Best UI for mechanical clicky if you ask me.

STAR off-time set to no memory can do that.  That's how I set up a lot of lights for guys who always want the light to turn on in either high or low first.

Mountain Electronics : batteries, Noctigon, and much more! What's new? 

Pages