Has hank mentioned 26800?
I’m viewing KR4 only in Ti + Cu. Do customers have to request aluminum version Al + Cu with tint ramping?
Check the link in the first post. There is a different picture to click on for the aluminum version.
Thanks! Right in front of me…
Depending on the emitters it`s like having flood and throw in one light.
I just ordered one in stonewashed Ti.
You have to keep in mind though that underdriven Leds are very efficient. You’ll get 2500 total lumens or so from two W2s at 9A while you’ll push 1800 with two W1s. I’m personally willing to sacrifice the 20% less throw for 40% more lumens.
Where are you getting the 2500 total lumens from? Do you have a link to an output chart for W2’s I can look at? I’ve been looking periodically for several months but all I’ve been able to find is a graph for CSLNM1.
This is the thread:
Here is the relevant graph for your convenience:
I typically use my lights outside and I prefer lumen driven candela (meaning high candela generated from sheer lumens) and sustainably high lumens. One of my favorite lights is the Mateminco MT04 with 4*SST40. It does 7000 lumens and 50k candela despite not being designed for throw.
Which LED would be a good pairing with the W1 or W2?
I’m looking for high lumen + throw CW and a not so floody NW (LH351D not a choice).
Don’t think I would be mixing them so different beam profile would not be an issue, instead I would simply switch between the channels.
I did some quick math to get an estimate. In the KR1, the W1 model gets 110 kcd at 5A, while the W2 model gets 100 kcd at 7.5A. In Hank’s four-LED tint-ramp lights, power is the same for either emitter type, so lux per Amp seems like the relevant value. That puts the W1 at about 65% more lux per Amp than W2.
Meanwhile, with two W1 driven at 4.5A each, total output is about 1800 lumens, while W2 gets about 2500 lumens. That’s about ~40% more photons, which is a big boost if you’re ceiling-bouncing the light.
If I did the math right, the W2 hotspot should look about 50% wider than W1, but only 60% as bright. Illuminating something to the same lux would take about 65% more power, and would have about 60% as much runtime, and would bump into thermal regulation sooner. Like, if W1 got 5 hours of runtime, W2 would get 3 hours at the same lux.
So for this range of lights, most people go with W1 as the throwy option.
This analysis is a bit weird. You are suggesting to ramp to achieve a certain level of candela. If I had the W2, I’d be resigned to the fact that it just simply doesn’t have the same level of candela. However, for the same current I can get about 40% more light. For walking around, the W2 is as “throwy” as I or probably most people would “need.” For W1 and W2, you can do this type of analysis but for other emitter pairs, there is typically nothing you can do current-wise to turn a floodier emitter to a throwier emitter in the same host.
My math above was a bit off, it should be closer to a 25-30% drop in candela from the W1 to W2. The intensity of the W1 at 4.5A is about 950 lm/mm^2 and the W2 at 4.5A is 700 lm/mm^2 (if you go by the die size estimates of Djozz).
One other benefit of the W2 is that Hank charges the same as a W1 despite it being a more expensive emitter.
Yes, because that’s what people generally do. They ramp until the thing they want to see is illuminated to a sufficient lux.
Neither one is going to be super throwy in a D4, D4S, or KR4. The hosts aren’t designed for distance. With two W1 or W2 in a D4 or KR4 at 9A, I’d expect about ~26 kcd or ~16 kcd… very approximately. Or in a D4S host, it might be closer to ~82 kcd vs ~50 kcd.
It’s not a thrower, but it’s enough for most daily tasks.
[quote=ToyKeeper]
My point was more about the power analysis. Yes, if you target a specific throw distance, the W1 will be more “power efficient.”
However, another person could target a specific lumen level, and in this case, the W2 will be more “power efficient.” Both are equally valid analyses I suppose but the latter method is probably used more often.
That’s not how light/your eyes work though. Unless you are carrying around an integrating sphere, when you set the level of your light by eye you are doing it based on how much lux is on target. An emitter/optic configuration that produces more lux at a given current will generally be more efficient than something floody that you have to crank up higher to get the same level of illumination on target.
For a throwy beam I was thinking SST20 4000k/W1 or maybe XPL Hi… So many choices!
What? No DT8? Blasphemy
What about DM11? It was my impression that W2 would be preferable because of a notable boost in candela… but would the W1 provide greater throw, albeit a narrower hotspot?
really good video in this post
DM11 has WE & W2 specs listed right on the product page, which makes things easy. In that light they provide the same throw, but W2 is brighter. That means it’ll have a wider hotspot, a little bit brighter spill. It’s also driven harder at 7.5A, compared to the 5A of W1, so W2 will probably step down harder & faster than W1.