What did you mod today?

10472 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 14626
Location: LI NY

Enderman wrote:
I have been tweaking my light canon, and I'm ALMOST at 1.5Mcd!!! Sooo close... 61000 lux at 4.9m = 1.46Mcd... I will post pics when I get to the magical 1.5!

Wow!! Congrats on this site unseen project! Try a reading at 10-15 meters, betcha you will get over 1.5 easy... I think every light I've tested at 5m got a nice little bump at ~12m, plus it's actually more accurate.

pilotdog68
pilotdog68's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 05/30/2013 - 23:31
Posts: 6422
Location: Held against my will in IOWA, USA

DB Custom wrote:
For what it’s worth, Canon is a registered trademark of a camera company, your use of the word would be cannon, as in long thrower. Wink (just a bit of OCD coming through, right is right, after all)

I agree he meant “cannon” (simple typo) but “canon” is not just a camera company:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon

My Favorite Modded Lights: X6R, S8 , X2R , M6, SP03

Major Projects:  Illuminated Tailcap, TripleDown/TripleStack Driver

Rufusbduck
Rufusbduck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/04/2012 - 15:34
Posts: 10389
Location: Golden state

Sk68 died a smoking blue death (single mode with liion cell) so I pulled out the pill and reamed the hollow shell to the OD of 1/2” copper pipe(.625”). And made up a copper insert. I might go old school and direct solder an XRE since a sinkpad would raise the die out of focus.

Three Tanna leaves to give him life, nine to give him movement. But what if he eats the whole bag?

Scott

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 56 min ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4278
Location: Vancouver, Canada
chouster wrote:
I’d be quite excited too, Enderman! Must be a crazy beam you got there…
evankouros wrote:
1.5Mcd!!! !!! Waiting for the pics! Thumbs Up
Tom E wrote:
Wow!! Congrats on this site unseen project! Try a reading at 10-15 meters, betcha you will get over 1.5 easy… I think every light I’ve tested at 5m got a nice little bump at ~12m, plus it’s actually more accurate.

Thanks guys Smile I actually made a mistake in my calculations, there’s a thing called etendue, and due to this the formula 1/r^2 doesn’t directly apply to my light because of how it is almost collimated…
The farther I take the measurement from the light, the more lux @ 1m I get.

The correct way to calculate it is by using this tool: http://nightsword.com/uniformbeamcalc/ or you can do a bit of trig to manually figure out the distance behind the lens
This means that I’ve always been underestimating my measurements, and I might be getting actual candlepower in the tens of millions….
I need to make new measurements at a longer distance, and measure the diameter of the spot to figure out the real number, so hopefully in the next week I can actually tell you guys the real numbers Big Smile

DB Custom wrote:
Truly awesome Lux numbers, looking forward to seeing pics of the light and set up.
For what it’s worth, Canon is a registered trademark of a camera company, your use of the word would be cannon, as in long thrower. Wink (just a bit of OCD coming through, right is right, after all)
Wouldn’t a light “cannon” project a large diameter beam, like the old aircraft search lights? Maybe I need coffee… sorry

Yes, but there are so many “light cannon” named lights I wanted mine to show up on google search, so I named it “lightcanon flashlight” so that it is pretty much the first result Wink

pilotdog68 wrote:

I agree he meant “cannon” (simple typo) but “canon” is not just a camera company:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon

SHHHHH let’s pretend it is what I said above ^^^^
pilotdog68
pilotdog68's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 05/30/2013 - 23:31
Posts: 6422
Location: Held against my will in IOWA, USA

The last emitters I bought to dedome died under direct drive, I think they were U3’s?

What bin of XP-L’s are known to be more “durable”? I know the W2’s on Aliexpress are an option, but I’m not sure I want to spend that much yet

My Favorite Modded Lights: X6R, S8 , X2R , M6, SP03

Major Projects:  Illuminated Tailcap, TripleDown/TripleStack Driver

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 56 min ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4278
Location: Vancouver, Canada

pilotdog68 wrote:
The last emitters I bought to dedome died under direct drive, I think they were U3’s?

What bin of XP-L’s are known to be more “durable”? I know the W2’s on Aliexpress are an option, but I’m not sure I want to spend that much yet


The XP-Ls are new cree production. with the really low Vf, so pretty much any bin in direct drive will die from too much current.
You need to use a current limiting driver for these, not FET or DD :/
pilotdog68
pilotdog68's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 05/30/2013 - 23:31
Posts: 6422
Location: Held against my will in IOWA, USA

I’m really not sure what you are talking about. I have heard zero reports that XP-L’s suddenly have a lower Vf. Unless you are talking about XP-L2’s?

My Favorite Modded Lights: X6R, S8 , X2R , M6, SP03

Major Projects:  Illuminated Tailcap, TripleDown/TripleStack Driver

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 27 min 25 sec ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2166
Location: Ohio

Enderman wrote:

Thanks guys Smile I actually made a mistake in my calculations, there’s a thing called etendue, and due to this the formula 1/r^2 doesn’t directly apply to my light because of how it is almost collimated…
The farther I take the measurement from the light, the more lux @ 1m I get.

The correct way to calculate it is by using this tool: http://nightsword.com/uniformbeamcalc/ or you can do a bit of trig to manually figure out the distance behind the lens
This means that I’ve always been underestimating my measurements, and I might be getting actual candlepower in the tens of millions….
I need to make new measurements at a longer distance, and measure the diameter of the spot to figure out the real number, so hopefully in the next week I can actually tell you guys the real numbers Big Smile

This is interesting. The details of this are not often discussed. I think for largish diameter lights this definitely makes a significant difference in how we would calculate the throw (cd).

I think you explained it fine; this is just some further explanation of my understanding of the subject. The inverse square law, which we use to calculate the cd, is valid for a point source of light and the distance in the formula should be from the point of light to where you measure. With flashlight beams, the light appears to come from a point behind the flashlight, not the face of the flashlight, and so this effective distance should be used in the formula, (cd)=(lux)(d^2), instead of just the distance to the flashlight.

Something bothers me about that calculator you linked, though. It implies that (with all other things the same) the size of the emitter affects the divergence distance behind the aperture. This somehow doesn’t seem right to me. I did some quick tests with my UF 1504 lens light. To get a more accurate measure of this effective divergence distance, I measured the beam size at different distances (2.5m, 4.2m, 10.2m from the lens), then simply graphed the points and drew a line through them. The point at which the line crosses zero is the effective point from which the light is emanating. I did this with two different sized emitters, the dedomed old XPG2 and the XPL HI, and got equal divergence distances behind the lens, 2.5m. This means, effectively, that the beam size is not the size of the lens at the lens. Anyway, I don’t understand all the implications, just wanted to put it out there.

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 27 min 25 sec ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2166
Location: Ohio
pilotdog68 wrote:
I’m really not sure what you are talking about. I have heard zero reports that XP-L’s suddenly have a lower Vf. Unless you are talking about XP-L2’s?

Mitko and DB custom reported the W2 would do ~6.6A on direct drive, so a bit lower Vf. But I haven’t heard they are dying from direct drive.

Did you have a U3 XML2 or XPL?

pilotdog68
pilotdog68's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 05/30/2013 - 23:31
Posts: 6422
Location: Held against my will in IOWA, USA
EasyB wrote:
pilotdog68 wrote:
I’m really not sure what you are talking about. I have heard zero reports that XP-L’s suddenly have a lower Vf. Unless you are talking about XP-L2’s?

Mitko and DB custom reported the W2 would do ~6.6A on direct drive, so a bit lower Vf. But I haven’t heard they are dying from direct drive.

Did you have a U3 XML2 or XPL?


They were XM-L2’s that died, but when I reported it I realized that it wasn’t just me, U3’s were dying for everyone. So I was wondering if there is a similar “cursed” bin of XP-L’s

My Favorite Modded Lights: X6R, S8 , X2R , M6, SP03

Major Projects:  Illuminated Tailcap, TripleDown/TripleStack Driver

giorgoskok
giorgoskok's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 12 hours ago
Joined: 11/13/2015 - 10:46
Posts: 2671
Location: Greece

THANK YOU !

Burned 3 xm-l2 U3’s in one C8 .

Now it’s running U4 without issues Wink

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 27 min 25 sec ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2166
Location: Ohio
pilotdog68 wrote:
EasyB wrote:
pilotdog68 wrote:
I’m really not sure what you are talking about. I have heard zero reports that XP-L’s suddenly have a lower Vf. Unless you are talking about XP-L2’s?

Mitko and DB custom reported the W2 would do ~6.6A on direct drive, so a bit lower Vf. But I haven’t heard they are dying from direct drive.

Did you have a U3 XML2 or XPL?


They were XM-L2’s that died, but when I reported it I realized that it wasn’t just me, U3’s were dying for everyone. So I was wondering if there is a similar “cursed” bin of XP-L’s

I see. I have not heard of any cursed XPLs. The V6 will do 6A on direct drive, typically. The W2 a bit more.

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 56 min ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4278
Location: Vancouver, Canada

pilotdog68 wrote:
I’m really not sure what you are talking about. I have heard zero reports that XP-L’s suddenly have a lower Vf. Unless you are talking about XP-L2’s?

Well this XP-L had a section of the die die (lol) under 6A, imagine if you drive it at 4.2v from a lipo…
vwpieces
vwpieces's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 17 hours ago
Joined: 07/17/2016 - 19:49
Posts: 2181
Location: PA, USA

My first 7135 stacking. Thorfire BD04 now with XM-L2 T6 3B

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 56 min ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4278
Location: Vancouver, Canada

EasyB wrote:

This is interesting. The details of this are not often discussed. I think for largish diameter lights this definitely makes a significant difference in how we would calculate the throw (cd).

I think you explained it fine; this is just some further explanation of my understanding of the subject. The inverse square law, which we use to calculate the cd, is valid for a point source of light and the distance in the formula should be from the point of light to where you measure. With flashlight beams, the light appears to come from a point behind the flashlight, not the face of the flashlight, and so this effective distance should be used in the formula, (cd)=(lux)(d^2), instead of just the distance to the flashlight.

Something bothers me about that calculator you linked, though. It implies that (with all other things the same) the size of the emitter affects the divergence distance behind the aperture. This somehow doesn’t seem right to me. I did some quick tests with my UF 1504 lens light. To get a more accurate measure of this effective divergence distance, I measured the beam size at different distances (2.5m, 4.2m, 10.2m from the lens), then simply graphed the points and drew a line through them. The point at which the line crosses zero is the effective point from which the light is emanating. I did this with two different sized emitters, the dedomed old XPG2 and the XPL HI, and got equal divergence distances behind the lens, 2.5m. This means, effectively, that the beam size is not the size of the lens at the lens. Anyway, I don’t understand all the implications, just wanted to put it out there.

It’s not the size of the emitter that matters, it is the size of the aperture of the flashlight.
I actually didn’t know how the website algorithm worked, so I took out my trusty calculator and did some simple trig, and I did get the same value as the website.
Basically imagine a triangle, starts at one point, and at 10m has a spot that is 10cm.
That is far more divergence than a rhombus that starts at 5cm and at 10m has a 10cm spot. (which is a section of a much looonger triangle)
As you can see, the second case has a lot less divergence than the first.
The square law of light “calculate back to 1m” method works for case 1 but not case 2.
I will draw a pic later today to illustrate this for other people Smile

CRX
CRX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/02/2013 - 15:27
Posts: 4231
Location: Scotland
EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 27 min 25 sec ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2166
Location: Ohio

Enderman wrote:

It’s not the size of the emitter that matters, it is the size of the aperture of the flashlight.
I actually didn’t know how the website algorithm worked, so I took out my trusty calculator and did some simple trig, and I did get the same value as the website.
Basically imagine a triangle, starts at one point, and at 10m has a spot that is 10cm.
That is far more divergence than a rhombus that starts at 5cm and at 10m has a 10cm spot. (which is a section of a much looonger triangle)
As you can see, the second case has a lot less divergence than the first.
The square law of light “calculate back to 1m” method works for case 1 but not case 2.
I will draw a pic later today to illustrate this for other people Smile

Well according to that calculator the beam size and the aperture are what matters. The beam size is determined in part by the emitter size (they are roughly proportional).

I agree with what you say, but I think the calculator is not completely right, for the reason I explained above. Imagine you have your lens, but you can switch between two different sized emitters. The two emitters will make different sized beams (measured at whatever distance), and so that calculator would predict different “divergence distance behind aperture” for each emitter. I am arguing that this is not accurate; they should have the same “divergence distance behind aperture”.

My measurements showed that this distance is the same for different sized emitters, and I think this makes sense. Imagine having one emitter, then putting another emitter right next to it to effectively double its size (in one dimension). Nothing has physically changed about that first emitter, but the calculator predicts a significantly different “divergence distance behind aperture” value. I think that is not physically accurate.

The calculator is essentially using two data points to draw a line to calculate this distance, the beam size at the aperture (which it assumes is the same size as the aperture) and the beam size that you actually measure at some distance away. The way I calculated the distance is by actually measuring the beam size at 3 different distances and drawing the line. I get a different result than the calculator; the effective beam size at the aperture is not actually the width of the aperture. More measurements are needed to fully understand this.

Rufusbduck
Rufusbduck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/04/2012 - 15:34
Posts: 10389
Location: Golden state

vwpieces wrote:
My first 7135 stacking. Thorfire BD04 now with XM-L2 T6 3B

!{width:70%}http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/vwpieces/Misc/P_20161209_141133_1...!


Nice clean solder work. Thumbs Up

Three Tanna leaves to give him life, nine to give him movement. But what if he eats the whole bag?

Scott

vwpieces
vwpieces's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 17 hours ago
Joined: 07/17/2016 - 19:49
Posts: 2181
Location: PA, USA

Thanks RBD,
2AM project… hope it works. Big Smile
With that said I did something stupid. Hooked to Bench PSU with reversed polarity. It’s from a Thorfire BD 04 and the driver is build different (wrong, backward).
Original emitter is dead so, will see shortly if driver survived.

emarkd
emarkd's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 day ago
Joined: 04/14/2015 - 22:04
Posts: 1608
Location: Georgia, USA

Very pretty solder work, and not an easy thing to do. At least, its not easy for me to do Smile

If you want to save a bit of time and effort, next time skip the center pins. Its continuous with the ground tab in the back so as long as one of those is connected it’ll all work fine.

Rufusbduck
Rufusbduck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/04/2012 - 15:34
Posts: 10389
Location: Golden state

And in most cases the base level center pads aren’t connected to the ground ring anyway so the only possible benefit is a smidge more heat sinking from the added solder mass.

Three Tanna leaves to give him life, nine to give him movement. But what if he eats the whole bag?

Scott

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 56 min ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4278
Location: Vancouver, Canada

EasyB wrote:

Well according to that calculator the beam size and the aperture are what matters. The beam size is determined in part by the emitter size (they are roughly proportional).

I agree with what you say, but I think the calculator is not completely right, for the reason I explained above. Imagine you have your lens, but you can switch between two different sized emitters. The two emitters will make different sized beams (measured at whatever distance), and so that calculator would predict different “divergence distance behind aperture” for each emitter. I am arguing that this is not accurate; they should have the same “divergence distance behind aperture”.

My measurements showed that this distance is the same for different sized emitters, and I think this makes sense. Imagine having one emitter, then putting another emitter right next to it to effectively double its size (in one dimension). Nothing has physically changed about that first emitter, but the calculator predicts a significantly different “divergence distance behind aperture” value. I think that is not physically accurate.

The calculator is essentially using two data points to draw a line to calculate this distance, the beam size at the aperture (which it assumes is the same size as the aperture) and the beam size that you actually measure at some distance away. The way I calculated the distance is by actually measuring the beam size at 3 different distances and drawing the line. I get a different result than the calculator; the effective beam size at the aperture is not actually the width of the aperture. More measurements are needed to fully understand this.

The emitter size is what affects the divergence.
If it was a point source, the rays would be collimated and the spot size would be equal to the projected size at any distance, which results in an infinite candlepower.
If you use the calculator and put the same aperture and spot size you get a divide by 0 error.

Since an LED is not a point source, the spot at 10m is larger than the aperture, which means there is divergence, and that is what needs to be taken into account.
And “aperture” refers to the initial diameter of the beam when leaving the flashlight. So the beam size is literally another way of saying aperture.
Obviously if you have a huge lens and only use 2cm diameter of it you would put 2cm as the aperture, not 200cm or whatever.

MRsDNF
MRsDNF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 6 days ago
Joined: 12/22/2011 - 21:18
Posts: 13473
Location: A light beam away from the missus in the land of Aus.

Rufusbduck wrote:
vwpieces wrote:
My first 7135 stacking. Thorfire BD04 now with XM-L2 T6 3B

!{width:70%}http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/vwpieces/Misc/P_20161209_141133_1...!


Nice clean solder work. Thumbs Up

+1 on on what RBD said. Looks orsm. Well done.

 

djozz quotes, "it came with chinese lettering that is chinese to me".

                      "My man mousehole needs one too"

old4570 said "I'm not an expert , so don't suffer from any such technical restrictions".

Old-Lumens. Highly admired and cherished member of Budget Light Forum. 11.5.2011 - 20.12.16. RIP.

 

vwpieces
vwpieces's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 17 hours ago
Joined: 07/17/2016 - 19:49
Posts: 2181
Location: PA, USA

MRsDNF wrote:
Rufusbduck wrote:
vwpieces wrote:
My first 7135 stacking. Thorfire BD04 now with XM-L2 T6 3B

!{width:70%}http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/vwpieces/Misc/P_20161209_141133_1...!


Nice clean solder work. Thumbs Up

+1 on on what RBD said. Looks orsm. Well done.

Thanks,
Have it fully assembled now, IT WORKS!!
Happy because it survived a 2AM Brain Fart.

Rufusbduck
Rufusbduck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/04/2012 - 15:34
Posts: 10389
Location: Golden state

That’s what D1 is for.

Three Tanna leaves to give him life, nine to give him movement. But what if he eats the whole bag?

Scott

staticx57
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/11/2016 - 00:43
Posts: 713
Location: New Jersey, United States

Coming along quite well. This is a really nice Reylight host. MTN-17DDm with 3000k 80CRI XPL HI. Still need to polish it and glue in the trits.

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 27 min 25 sec ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2166
Location: Ohio

Enderman wrote:
EasyB wrote:

Well according to that calculator the beam size and the aperture are what matters. The beam size is determined in part by the emitter size (they are roughly proportional).

I agree with what you say, but I think the calculator is not completely right, for the reason I explained above. Imagine you have your lens, but you can switch between two different sized emitters. The two emitters will make different sized beams (measured at whatever distance), and so that calculator would predict different “divergence distance behind aperture” for each emitter. I am arguing that this is not accurate; they should have the same “divergence distance behind aperture”.

My measurements showed that this distance is the same for different sized emitters, and I think this makes sense. Imagine having one emitter, then putting another emitter right next to it to effectively double its size (in one dimension). Nothing has physically changed about that first emitter, but the calculator predicts a significantly different “divergence distance behind aperture” value. I think that is not physically accurate.

The calculator is essentially using two data points to draw a line to calculate this distance, the beam size at the aperture (which it assumes is the same size as the aperture) and the beam size that you actually measure at some distance away. The way I calculated the distance is by actually measuring the beam size at 3 different distances and drawing the line. I get a different result than the calculator; the effective beam size at the aperture is not actually the width of the aperture. More measurements are needed to fully understand this.

The emitter size is what affects the divergence.
If it was a point source, the rays would be collimated and the spot size would be equal to the projected size at any distance, which results in an infinite candlepower.
If you use the calculator and put the same aperture and spot size you get a divide by 0 error.

Since an LED is not a point source, the spot at 10m is larger than the aperture, which means there is divergence, and that is what needs to be taken into account.
And “aperture” refers to the initial diameter of the beam when leaving the flashlight. So the beam size is literally another way of saying aperture.
Obviously if you have a huge lens and only use 2cm diameter of it you would put 2cm as the aperture, not 200cm or whatever.

Yes, everything you say is fine. I’m just saying that some of the details of that calculator differ from the measurements I just took.

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 56 min ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4278
Location: Vancouver, Canada

EasyB wrote:

Yes, everything you say is fine. I’m just saying that some of the details of that calculator differ from the measurements I just took.

It really depends on how well your flashlight can collimate, this method is almost irrelevant for regular reflector LED flashlights.
I made a separate post to explain everything: http://budgetlightforum.com/node/51344

kramer5150
kramer5150's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: 05/19/2010 - 13:43
Posts: 2331
Location: Palo Alto CA

Getting back into it… Its been 4-5 years since I modded anything.

I thought my fave EDC of the last 5 years needed a little upgrade. Most nerve-racking part was getting the head apart with a strap wrench and small vise.

Old pale green tint XPG2… I cant remember the Flux BIN either R4 or R5.

No copper here, just aluminum.

New XP-G3 S5, 3C tint (~5k)… All gutts

Strange die, no bond wires, or die squares.

And the glory

Nicolicous
Nicolicous's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/16/2016 - 08:28
Posts: 1604
Location: Australia

aluminium foil wrap around triple led optic to prevent lumen wastage

It’s not really a mod Silly

I dont have a light meter but i can tell the different Big Smile

Nico -.-

Pages