No offense, and totally off-topic but your big a$$ smileys are REALLY annoying…
Mmmkay got it, should look much handier now.
Regards,
Salvador :partying_face:
comfychair is right. With an aspheric lens in focus, you will basically see a magnified image that looks exactly like what you see when looking down onto the led board - four distinct emitters. When you shine it onto a wall, there will be four squares of light separated by a grid of darkness that will look like a big plus sign. Still, it might look cool! Only you could tell whether you like it or not, so go ahead and build it and see for yourself! 
However, if you decide that it’s not for you, maybe you could find a TIR that will fit in there and collimate the light into a single beam. I don’t know if TIRs are made in that size and shape, but maybe?
Well DavidEF, just soldered some thin wires and an 1Ω power resistor (who is probably older than myself) to the stock XM-L on the pillhead, grabbed the aspheric and did some freehand testing feeding the thing with a li-ion.
I like what I've seen, slightly displacing the aspheric side by side barely has any effect on the focus (for sure much less effect than the vibration of my own hands, LOL!). Emitter offset distance from the center would be slightly less than 2'5mm (<1/10 of an inch).
Oh! It won't look like four squares, but four circles. :CROWN:
Cheers ^:-)
Yes, if the lens is the right focal distance from the face of the LED, there will be no noticeable loss of focus by moving the lens over to the right or left. But, if it is perfectly focused, there will be four squares of light coming out, because the dies which produce the light are square. You can back off the focus a little to make it less square, but you lose throw that way.
Well, I don't have that modified Saik SA-9 zoomie with 219B emitter at hand, I bargained it to a friend long ago; he got hooked on the thing just after seeing it.
I don't remember seeing a square emitter when zoomed in, more like a fuzzy circle which looked nice but, anyway, I barely had any time to test the torch, she 
got boyfriend too soon.
Cheers ^:-)
Yes, the “fuzzy circle” means that the lens is not perfectly focused on the die. Many manufacturers do this on purpose because they think it looks better than the perfect representation of the LED. It was especially true back when Cree emitters were squares with two corners knocked out and lines running down the middle. Not exactly pretty! :confounded:
Most of the cheapest zoomie lights that are out there still have this appearance because they are either using older emitters or clones of the original Cree style. Here is an example I pulled off Google Images just now: 
Well, fact is that, before modification, you could see a well defined XR-E emitter shape when zoomed in, and it certainly looked like the picture you’ve linked there.
After the emitter change, the zoomed in shape was, as I said, more like a fuzzy circle, pearly shape or whatever. I really don’t know if I screwed up something, but anyway I loved it. 
Cheers
Already ordered a bottle of Goot Super Soldering Flux and a 100-pack of R330 SMD resistors so, officially:
Cheers
P.S.: after re-checking this testing two of KD's new Nichia 219b leds (4500K'92CRI' and 5500K), seems my expected lumen throughput will be “just doable” with around 2A per emitter. Hope the thing doesn't heats up too much with ≈25W on the emitter board… 
From what I see on KD’s product descriptions, both XP-L HI and XHP70 are “minimum 80-CRI”. Domed XP-L is either typical OR minimum 80-CRI. Waiting for KD’s staff to post the emitter’s bin/order code.
Cheers
Well, I’ve been obsessively over-analyzing this lately, my head somewhat aches. :person_facepalming:
Well, with the driver set at 4’2A and presuming my host’s cooling ability would allow me to drive the emitters at about 4A comfortably, that means I would get around 1600+ peak lumens output with 4×219Bs; if, on the other hand, I stick one of those 80CRI minimum XHP70s, I think I’d get close to 2200 lumens of sustained output for the same driving current.
I’m somewhat leaning to the aforementioned quad 219Bs experiment but, I really don’t know if the extra effort is worth all that extra CRI minus ⅓ off the overall light throughput. I guess it is but, I’m dazed right now.
Gosh!
Cheers :partying_face:
was this the idea your thinking about? ( i though i was the only crazy person to try it lol* i did the same back in January with four Nichia padless 119 emitters on a XHP70 sinkpad.
Well, sort of.
What kind of bizarre common-cathode configuration is that? 
Cheers :partying_face:
Wait, am I wrong or does that board allow you to individually address each LED?
Well, seems so as long as you leave the J contact areas non-bridged.
Cheers
in this set up it does. or bridge the J links and its a quad single input.
( i have only did testing with this so far, and not put it into any light yet. ( trying to decide on the host 
It’s not 4S?
its 4 separate addressable LEDs in this set up if nothing is bridged, (only the center pad is a common Neutral to the round contact just left of the emitters. ( bridge both J and R (R with a bridge wire) or then use the + contact and the center round contact as a - its all parallel then. ( or flow the LEDs in + - + - config on the board then its 2S2P (6 volt average) connected to the - and + contacts.
This board can be configurated in various ways like this, (but only works easily with the center pad-less 119 Nichia emitters. XP-G or 219s would be tricky to not short with the center pad. (sort of the four 119s can be set up in 3, 6 and 12 volt series configs.
Mmm, totally off-topic if you don’t mind but, what about chrome plating my zoomie’s head? I say this because, upon zooming in, as the head moves upwards the light would reflect much more efficiently on its plated inner surface. Not to say it would also look pretty cool from the outside.
Cheers :partying_face:
Well, I finally made up my mind:
Cheers :partying_face: