Carclo not going to make triple XP-L optics (possible group buy for custom TIR)

Thank you! There are more of us than you think…

All they should really have to do is to make the center holes larger in diameter at the bottom and re adjust the taper. It should still be a "10 degree" optic, with a larger center hole. The beam should be comparable to an XP-G triple. The larger die size does not cause a 10 degree optic to be anything other than 10 degree. The optic directs the light. The biggest problem will be fitting it all into the standard 20mm diameter of those triples. The way the TIR spreads out the light is done in the taper of the center hole, towards the top. The 20mm optics I have for XM-L have a large hole at the bottom, to accommodate the led and they taper considerably, to make it 10 degree. The 45 degree ones have an almost straight hole, with no taper. 10 degree can be done in the 20mm three-up, it's just the high cost of making a die. Well, actually, they only have to make the inserts, as the die bases are standardized, so the cost is probably in the couple thousand dollar range for just the inserts. They can just change inserts for one cavity in the die and save themselves lots, by making them in a standard run and sorting the cavity out after. I would be surprised if they only want a small run, even with those costs.

ditto — except I think I’d take 10 even if they’re just plain ol’ Carlco 10507’s at that price. But especially if they’ll fit XP-L’s with the domes on. I’m eager to see what that might look like, even if it’s a super floody beam. I like the beam pattern with them dedomed a whole lot… hopefully it wouldn’t be too drastically different.

So why do LEDs with different die sizes give different beam angles with the same TIR? Same goes for the same LED with dome on and with dome removed in the same TIR. The beam angle changes dramatically.

The 10mm lenses in the 20mm TIRs are so small, enlarging the bottom hole enough to fit over a XML-size dome would also remove a lot of the lower section of the cone, there's just not enough cross section down there. Another way to put it, the OD of the dome is larger than the OD of the bottom section of the lens where the dome needs to go.

Enlarging the hole would mean the part below the horizontal line would no longer exist.


The part of the TIR below the horizontal line. To make it do otherwise would require two objects occupying the same space at the same time and I don't think our technology has progressed to that point yet.

Gosh that’s little to nothing.

Are you saying you can shave part of the TIR bottom off and remove the need to dedome an XP-L to fit under an xpg2 TIR?

That's a huge amount to remove on such a tiny lens. I've cut and chopped and mutilated lots of these things, and doing that would severely alter the beam. I've experimented with both shortening the legs and extending them and shaving that bottom part of the cone to let the lens sit lower. It doesn't work. Some things you can do to them with little effect and some things destroy them. Messing with any part of it down around the LED opening is one of the things that destroys them.

I think that de-doming a led, allows a lot of light to get out from under the center hole. Those three ups sit up off the die face a little. That light gets out around the outside of the cone, especially on a three up, where there is some thin areas between the three cones. It has to go out and it's not focused, so it makes for a much larger beam. Same with a bigger die. The hole has to be sized for the die, so that the majority of the light goes up and out that center. Light is still going to get out around it and with a small hole and big die, you get a much less pronunced spot.

If you shorten a TIR at the bottom and sit it down on the die face, the beam starts looking more like an aspheric that is partly focused. So the depth of the center hole and the taper, plus the diameter, in relation to the die size, all have an effect, but I still think they could make a 20mm three-up, using a larger hole and steeper cone, so that the overall diameter stays within 20mm.

It's just my thoughts, but not based on anything more than playing around with TIR optics for a while. I maybe all wet. Been there before, will be again.

All the the Carclo 3-up parts except the 10507 have an inverted dome that nearly touches the XP-size dome, only the 10507 has a flat roof above the LED.

So I'm guessing why they specifically mentioned the 10507 in their reply. But I still think enlarging the hole would ruin the beam, even worse than the huge die & huge dome on the XP-L.

Actually I requested the 10507 as it was the least floody optic I think (could be wrong.)

I wondered would he responded differently had I not specified the 10507 (probably not, considering he wants 5 figures to make one)

Let's put this up on Kickstarter. Do a nice video or make it funny and those idiots will fund anything.

10507 is like a mule, but with a restrictor to block out any spill. It's a 'spot' lens. 10511 (after polishing) has something resembling a center hotspot, and normal amount of spill.

The resulting beam pattern may look like that, but the efficiency numbers seem to indicate that the output is not being achieved in the way you describe. ~90% efficiency doesn’t sound like a restrictor blocking spill, it sounds like efficient TIR bringing everything it can OTF. No?

If you compare a 20mm triple XP or Nichia with a 20mm single XM it’s pretty easy to see that the single has a tighter beam and since a 20mm single XP is tighter than a 20mm single XM it would be a difficult proposition to design a 20mm triple XM that had a very tight beam. I think it could be noticeably better than a mule but you won’t get there by mutilating an XP triple. It needs to be redesigned with a larger center hole and reshape the inverted dome to focus the larger XM die. Most of the light is emitted in a ~130 degree cone so the loss at the base is less of a problem than having the wrong shape in the rest of the optic and widening the base of the TIR would either steepen the sides or shorten the depth. I’m in favor of trying things just on principle but in this case I’m thinking the gains will be minimal. Not zero but maybe not worth a huge investment. I certainly don’t think it’s possible for an optic designed for a domed triple XP-L to focus better than an XP-g optic on a dedomed triple XP-L though it should have higher lumen numbers. Maybe that makes it worthwhile, I don’t know.

Make sure you mention graphene a few times…wooo!

Yes, I just mean what it looks like on the wall/in use. Lots of people seem to have gotten the impression the 10507 is the 'throwiest' of the TIRs... it's far from that. It's just a big fat circle that's the same intensity from the center out to the cutoff. Like a mule with a restrictor on it! ;)

I've not seen a TIR that gave a defined hot spot, with a little spill. They are more like Comfy says. Some type of spot, but it blends out to be just one large beam. That's what they are designed for. They are not really for spotlights. They are for indoor use and they do direct light better than an incandescent does. They do make a spot, but it's not harsh like a reflector, it's more mellow and even. They do what they are intended for, but we try to make them do what they are not intended for.

The 10511 comes with the front face frosted, and in stock form does have a very large fluffy center spot as you'd expect with a frosted TIR. But if you polish it with jeweler's rouge, it turns into something along the lines of a domed XML2 in a 17-18mm OP reflector.