It’s sad to say, but I don’t have any new build plans for a Cree emitter (s). The last was a triple 50.2 and before that a quad 70.2. Just toys and shelf queens. IMHO, ~80cri NW HI emitters from them are the only things I might buy more of anytime soon for gift lights.
The present and near-future of my interests are practical builds. For me, that’s hiCRI arrays running sustainable currents in mule headlamps or Carlo tube lights and pocket throwers utilizing Black Flats. If these turn out as expected and help resolve the pencil beam issue of the BFs then paint me happy! Hoping to see these soon!
It shows the internal structure of the LED and that one (obviously) shouldn't use non-dtp pcbs.
Also, I found some precise values regarding the luminance (these are stated in the product filter/selector):
At 6A and 1670 lumen the LED gives off 553cd which means the luminance is 278cd/mm2 (just divide by the die size - 1,9875mm2). 1670lm is at the center of the possible brightness range of the possible bins when the LED is being driven at 6A.
The luminance based on the lumens: 0,167cd/mm2 per lumen (scales linearily, just multiply with any lumens value to get the luminance at that specific brightness)
I’m not really good in this. Does this imply that the Boost HX has 2.7 times the luminance of even the KW CSLNM1-TG ? (based on the numbers you just posted in the KW… thread)
(edit: maybe the drive currents can not directly be compared)
278 cd/mm² at 83 lm/W? If yes – that’s incredibly good.
At this efficiency HWQP, Q8WP, XHP35 HI do a bit less than 150 cd/mm². XP-G2 is probably slightly behind. NM1 is nearing 200.
I’m not really good in this. Does this imply that the Boost HX has 2.7 times the luminance of even the KW CSLNM1-TG ? (based on the numbers you just posted in the KW… thread)
(edit: maybe the drive currents can not directly be compared)
No. According to that thread KW CSLNM1-TG does 281.7 cd/mm² when driven to 900 lm.
Boost HX at 6A (which is not peak) does 278 cd/mm². According to the datasheet, that’s 340+ cd/mm² at 8A. And the output curve looks like it’s far from the peak.
Frankly, I find it a bit too good….
Added:
A 1.9875mm² Lambertian emitter driven to 1670 lm has 267.46 cd/mm². Or 160.1 cd/mm²/lm.
I’m not really good in this. Does this imply that the Boost HX has 2.7 times the luminance of even the KW CSLNM1-TG ? (based on the numbers you just posted in the KW… thread)
(edit: maybe the drive currents can not directly be compared)
The point here is that you can use my conversion factors to calculate the luminance of these LEDs ( I also posted numbers in the other Ostam “white” thread) based on the lumens they put out. Just multiply the two values. You have already measured the lumens at different currents. Now we can calculate the performance of different lights using these LEDs.
Agro wrote:
djozz wrote:
I’m not really good in this. Does this imply that the Boost HX has 2.7 times the luminance of even the KW CSLNM1-TG ? (based on the numbers you just posted in the KW… thread)
(edit: maybe the drive currents can not directly be compared)
No. According to that thread KW CSLNM1-TG does 281.7 cd/mm² when driven to 900 lm.
Boost HX at 6A (which is not peak) does 278 cd/mm². According to the datasheet, that’s 340+ cd/mm² at 8A. And the output curve looks like it’s far from the peak.
Frankly, I find it a bit too good….
Added:
A 1.9875mm² Lambertian emitter driven to 1670 lm has 267.46 cd/mm². Or 160.1 cd/mm²/lm.
There has always been a slight discrepancy between the measured values and using the lumens/(area*pi) formula.
Further notes:
1. I see that The Diver listed the die size as just 1.25*1.59 rectangle. This is marginally untrue because of rounded edges.
If I calculate size from 0.167 cd/mm²/lm I get 1.906047 mm². 4.1% less? Rounding seems smaller than that, so we have some discrepancy, but marginally smaller than before.
2. From the application note:
“additional care should be taken to minimize mechanical stress on the silicone encapsulation”. Silicone? I thought they use sintered phosphors. Does that include silicone? Or did they just copy and paste this sentence from another document?
If Boost HX actually becomes available reasonably soon and performs in line with the expectations, it’s going to give LEPs a run for their money.
It’s not as intense, but close enough to compete with the current generation of LEP flashlights. Output is way higher. Efficacy is good. Price…way way lower.
“additional care should be taken to minimize mechanical stress on the silicone encapsulation”. Silicone? I thought they use sintered phosphors. Does that include silicone? Or did they just copy and paste this sentence from another document?
I’m not sure regarding that. Maybe they put silicone on top of the sintered phosphor.
Well yes and know. Those LEDs also have silicone inside the phosphor and it’s not sintered (Cree has never mentioned this as far as I know). I mentioned the article regarding sintered phosphor here.
I’m pretty sure it’s not a premolded part since it encapsulates the bond wires (see the OSRAM document somewhere above). It’s very likely molded around the mounted die.
They talk about the types of materials used here: Link
I know it’s not very “silicone-like” but that’s based on the “typical” silicones we know. Even cheap Fujik is quite different (hard and almost brittle).
The white stuff shows no flexibility at all, it breaks, and makes a scratching noise when I rub it with my forceps. It has at least the hardness of bakelite, or maybe it is ceramic.
I know, the CSLNM1 I have here are packaged in the same stuff. Again, I see no reason why this couldn’t be a filled silicone compound. It behaves like one under the tip of a soldering iron too (gets crumbly around 300°C, never melts). And the advantages in this application are obvious.
Quote:
The white stuff shows no flexibility at all, it breaks, and makes a scratching noise when I rub it with my forceps. It has at least the hardness of bakelite, or maybe it is ceramic.
How could they cast ceramic around the die + phosphor + bond wires (nicely visible in your pic btw)? They clearly mold this in place.
Aaaaanyway… my point was that there’s fragile bond wires embedded in there and that may be why they mention not to put pressure on it.
That is settled then
Now for the leds and we’re in business
link to djozz tests
waiting for the test
shockli great imr batteries
You’re amazing, thanks so much
The OPTOFIRE - 4.63Mcd aspheric LED flashlight The SYNIOSBEAM - 10Mcd recoil LED flashlight List of the farthest throwing flashlights
Yaaaay!
Reviews: Olight Seeker2 pro, Lumintop GlowI, Sofirn SP36, Convoy 4X18A, Convoy M21C, Brinyte SR8 Rescue Angel, Astrolux MF01 mini, Astrolux FT03S, YLP Sherp S15, Sofirn SP40, YLP Panda 3R and Unicorn, Armytek Prime C1 Pro, Acebeam M50, Imalent MS18, Convoy M3, Nitecore TIP2, Imalent RT70, Wuben T70, Sofirn SP32A, Thorfire VG15S, Thorfire VG10S, Thorfire TG06S
Mods: Imalent MS18 dedoming, Astrolux MF01-20K, Small sun T08 MT-G2, Eagle eye X6 triple XPL, Ultrafire F13 MT-G2, Convoy C8 XHP70, Solarstorm T3 triple XP-L HI
Big flashlight measurement and beamshot collection
3D printing stuff for flashlights
My flashlight related Instagram
My Flashlight related Youtube channel called Zozzlights
Yes Led4Power… Go for it…
This will be ultra thrower for sure and I really really know that. No need for any special testing I guarantee that to whole forum
BUMP this topic to create more demand, which will help getting these (well, hopefully).
Thinking about this emitter, i have several lights waiting for this kind of LED, some of them for years already…
But i guess it is just a matter of time.
But we were all a bit worried about the flip chip trend, i guess.
Hope to see some warmer tints soon too.
I want green one
Maybe wait what Cree will come up with?
You mean like XHP35.2?
It’s sad to say, but I don’t have any new build plans for a Cree emitter (s). The last was a triple 50.2 and before that a quad 70.2. Just toys and shelf queens. IMHO, ~80cri NW HI emitters from them are the only things I might buy more of anytime soon for gift lights.
The present and near-future of my interests are practical builds. For me, that’s hiCRI arrays running sustainable currents in mule headlamps or Carlo tube lights and pocket throwers utilizing Black Flats. If these turn out as expected and help resolve the pencil beam issue of the BFs then paint me happy! Hoping to see these soon!
To quote Driver:
Current Collection:
BLF: BLF-GT90, BLF-GT70 (CW Sliced), BLF GTmini, BLF-LT1;
BTU: Shocker (3 x SST-40 @ 8A);
Solarforce: L2P (XM-L2 U3 @ 4A), MPP-1 (XP-L HI @ 6A), MPP-3 (3 x XM-L2 U2 @ 12A), M6 (Nichia 319A @ 6A), M8 (XHP-50.2 @ 9A), 9x (9 x XM-L2 U2 @ 2A);
Coming Soon: Lumintop: BLF-GT4;
I just found something:
Application Note No. AN131:
Osram Application hints for high-current LEDs valid for OSLON Boost HX (KW CULPM1.TG)
It shows the internal structure of the LED and that one (obviously) shouldn't use non-dtp pcbs.
Also, I found some precise values regarding the luminance (these are stated in the product filter/selector):
At 6A and 1670 lumen the LED gives off 553cd which means the luminance is 278cd/mm2 (just divide by the die size - 1,9875mm2). 1670lm is at the center of the possible brightness range of the possible bins when the LED is being driven at 6A.
The luminance based on the lumens: 0,167cd/mm2 per lumen (scales linearily, just multiply with any lumens value to get the luminance at that specific brightness)
Project Excalibur - Next Generation LED Thrower (UPDATE 2018-01-15: 1.7Mcd)
Portable Thrower Comparison
I’m not really good in this. Does this imply that the Boost HX has 2.7 times the luminance of even the KW CSLNM1-TG ? (based on the numbers you just posted in the KW… thread)
(edit: maybe the drive currents can not directly be compared)
link to djozz tests
278 cd/mm² at 83 lm/W? If yes – that’s incredibly good.
At this efficiency HWQP, Q8WP, XHP35 HI do a bit less than 150 cd/mm². XP-G2 is probably slightly behind. NM1 is nearing 200.
No. According to that thread KW CSLNM1-TG does 281.7 cd/mm² when driven to 900 lm.
Boost HX at 6A (which is not peak) does 278 cd/mm². According to the datasheet, that’s 340+ cd/mm² at 8A. And the output curve looks like it’s far from the peak.
Frankly, I find it a bit too good….
Added:
A 1.9875mm² Lambertian emitter driven to 1670 lm has 267.46 cd/mm². Or 160.1 cd/mm²/lm.
Thanks for the extra info Agro
link to djozz tests
The point here is that you can use my conversion factors to calculate the luminance of these LEDs ( I also posted numbers in the other Ostam “white” thread) based on the lumens they put out. Just multiply the two values. You have already measured the lumens at different currents. Now we can calculate the performance of different lights using these LEDs.
There has always been a slight discrepancy between the measured values and using the lumens/(area*pi) formula.
Project Excalibur - Next Generation LED Thrower (UPDATE 2018-01-15: 1.7Mcd)
Portable Thrower Comparison
Further notes:
1. I see that The Diver listed the die size as just 1.25*1.59 rectangle. This is marginally untrue because of rounded edges.
If I calculate size from 0.167 cd/mm²/lm I get 1.906047 mm². 4.1% less? Rounding seems smaller than that, so we have some discrepancy, but marginally smaller than before.
2. From the application note:
“additional care should be taken to minimize mechanical stress on the silicone encapsulation”. Silicone? I thought they use sintered phosphors. Does that include silicone? Or did they just copy and paste this sentence from another document?
If Boost HX actually becomes available reasonably soon and performs in line with the expectations, it’s going to give LEPs a run for their money.
It’s not as intense, but close enough to compete with the current generation of LEP flashlights. Output is way higher. Efficacy is good. Price…way way lower.
I’m not sure regarding that. Maybe they put silicone on top of the sintered phosphor.
Project Excalibur - Next Generation LED Thrower (UPDATE 2018-01-15: 1.7Mcd)
Portable Thrower Comparison
^ Just like XP-L HI and XHP35 HI
Well yes and know. Those LEDs also have silicone inside the phosphor and it’s not sintered (Cree has never mentioned this as far as I know). I mentioned the article regarding sintered phosphor here.
Project Excalibur - Next Generation LED Thrower (UPDATE 2018-01-15: 1.7Mcd)
Portable Thrower Comparison
This might refer to the white stuff surrounding the die. Could be a rigid silicone with fillers.
That stuff on the PM1 is not silicone-like but seemingly rigid stuff that chips off.
link to djozz tests
djozz knows, he is a serial LED abuser.
Maybe ceramic?
Stable at high temps…
Or that white cement stuff put on high temperature bulbs:
The OPTOFIRE - 4.63Mcd aspheric LED flashlight The SYNIOSBEAM - 10Mcd recoil LED flashlight List of the farthest throwing flashlights
I’m pretty sure it’s not a premolded part since it encapsulates the bond wires (see the OSRAM document somewhere above). It’s very likely molded around the mounted die.
They talk about the types of materials used here: Link
I know it’s not very “silicone-like” but that’s based on the “typical” silicones we know. Even cheap Fujik is quite different (hard and almost brittle).
The white stuff shows no flexibility at all, it breaks, and makes a scratching noise when I rub it with my forceps. It has at least the hardness of bakelite, or maybe it is ceramic.
link to djozz tests
I know, the CSLNM1 I have here are packaged in the same stuff. Again, I see no reason why this couldn’t be a filled silicone compound. It behaves like one under the tip of a soldering iron too (gets crumbly around 300°C, never melts). And the advantages in this application are obvious.
How could they cast ceramic around the die + phosphor + bond wires (nicely visible in your pic btw)? They clearly mold this in place.
Aaaaanyway… my point was that there’s fragile bond wires embedded in there and that may be why they mention not to put pressure on it.
Pages