NEW: CREE X-Lamp XQ-E HI Intensity LED

Need a laser?


Should be one great thrower for 25-40mm lenses in smaller hosts.

Low VF. 335 Lumens from 1mm² die area (which we know is that common “low” number they give us at first release).

Thermal resistance rated at 6°C/W! Half the XQ-E Torch rating, and 2/3 the XP-E2 rating. That’s good news. Might see 415+ lumens from this and holding, over-driven, with resistance like that.

I had to edit for correction. I’ll say it again, Cree you sometimes confuse me. The XQ-E Torch, is rated at 12.5°C/W tR. The XQ-E (standard) is still rated the same tR, 6°C/W. What’s going on here? How can two LEDs of the same physical structure—at least to the apparent eye—one a Torch bin, have double the thermal resistance as the other? Drive it 50mA more (the Torch rating) to double the heat capture, that just doesn’t sound correct. Oh well, at least this LED looks good to my eyes.

Could be a great thrower in a 1405!

Cree read the “BLF Pocketthrower”-Thread and created these :smiley:

Nice addition, love to see this at work in a small flashlight.

Except that they forgot to do it to the XB-D, the XQ-E does not have a central thermal pad. Perhaps not too problematic, the amount of heat to get rid of is not that high in these small leds, but at least there is a Sinkpad for the XB-D to pump up the performance out of spec.

Is it just me, or do you guys think CREE is eventually going to get around to having a HI and HD version of all their LED’s? I know of at least three right now just off the top of my head.

I think it’s time to see how the XQE’s I have dedome. I’m curious if maximum throw is still achieved with a dedomed emitter as someone testing the XP-L variants found. If they dedome well it’s just down to whether the tint it any good.

They are realizing the market for throwers and I suspect will be changing things so that domeless is the norm.

If you look at the anode and cathode on the XQE’s you’ll see they cover all but a .3mm slice of the LED base. The XB-D has two .3mm slices between the 3 pads. So maybe if you have a DTP board for the XB-D you can overdrive it harder than the XQE, but I don’t know of any DTP XB-D boards. The much larger size than the XQE, without the fair bit more output it would need to match their surface intensity means that the XQE’s should beat out the XB-D in a compact thrower.

Edit: just realized you mentioned that there’s a sinkpad for the XB-D’s. I’d like to see how they test on one before I pass judgement.

This will make for a good tiny quad or triple. I am very happy with the XP-L HI beam pattern, so another HI addition to the line is a good thing in my opinion.

Now we have to convince someone to make a triple board for these that fits in a AA tube light design… :bigsmile:

I have a friend who works for a company that makes big pole LED lights, think car dealer lots, Big Box stores, etc.
Last year he told me that the new direction lighting companies are going in is to have bright light that has a definitive wall or edge.
Reason being many municipalities are writing regulations concerning light pollution, unintended light creeping into a residential neighborhood from a business for example.

So a de domed emitter fits right into this scheme. Cree is the biggest supplier for his company. They also want every emitter to be driven over 1 amp, this is up from .5-.7
Interesting that this is finally coming to market.

Wow nice! And that is basically a dedomed XP-E2, right?

Now I hope CREE will finally come out a dedomed XP-G2 variation!

An XP-E2 is bigger than the XQE and the XB-D’s. The entire XQE including the die is about the same size as just the emitter on an XP-G2.

I already know exactly what my plan is. 25mm Noctigon. MT-G2 mounted center. It won’t be the only LED on-board. 4 XQ-Es will have dichroic flat mirrors epoxied to them at angles. My large RA on top to reflect what comes off the dichroic mirrors. Result = stacked XQ-E reflected images landing on the MT-G2 center. The MT-G2 will have central lux higher than a fully driven XPG2 if I can get them to all land at center of chip. All LEDs powered up. Done right that would be 1600~ lumens landing on 1mm² center of MTG2, while the rest of the MTG2 is still powered up completely. The time has come for my plan to play out.

Henry, I need to paypal you asap. :slight_smile:

On another note, this brings new inspiration to the 1505s I wasn’t very fond of besides their good looks. (Bad lenses) For some other reason I want to Cerakote all my 1505s Zombie Green, too. Don’t ask… I think I’ll go do one right now. These tiny emitters have something special going for them, small meniscus lenses will dome right over them without touching the die/package.

I assume your MT-G2 plan is with royal blue XQ-E's? Nice concept, the HI version is not strictly necessary for it but optically it might be easier.

"Domeless" is the flashaholic equivalent to "topless," the ultimate in flashlight eroticism. And none of us can stop drooling!

That was the tossup. Royal blue, I was afraid, may pull the tint too blue shifted if the phosphor gets maxed out, or over saturated with blue light from the front instead of from the underside. I’m not certain it can be maxed out easily when only fed with blue light because of conversion, but surely the effect will have a notable difference in final color between using all blue or all white. All white may keep pulling the kelvin temp down to the point it’s yellow/greenish, but…a 50/50 mix might be interesting to start with. Then just do a few quick swaps and see what happens. Problem being those quick swaps aren’t so quick, the mirrors have to set near perfectly each time to get the images to land center. Without the mirrors, one corner would just illuminate the opposite corner, effecting the other XQ-E and not landing on the MT-G2, which would be somewhat useless as far as total MTG2 lux is concerned.

Scrape the phosphor off one XQE at a time if you want to shift it without refocusing.

Here’s a picture comparing a dedomed XP-G2 (dead) and a freshly dedomed XQE (alive).

Wow that thing is tiny!! Not sure if I want to even attempt a reflow on that small die

Reflowed just fine. You just need tiny tweezers to work with them.

I think we need to see just the die area itself, not the whole package. The die area of the XQE is 1mm² as mentioned by MEM, which is supposed to be exactly the same as the XP-E2 die area.

The CREE XQE spreadsheet doesn’t show the die area though, or maybe I missed it.