41

I that actually phosphor around the die? Doesn’t seem like it.

42

I can’t wait for it to show up with peak lumens a bit lower than Luxeon V and SST40, worse tint and tint-shift, and this long after those two emitters came out.

43

I’m not hoping that it is DOA, but rather just presuming…

It serves a purpose for them and the market somewhere along the line. BLF requirements probably didn’t make it to their product design planning… I bet it’s cheap. Probably one third of the sst40. And while operating within spec, it likely has overlapping performance. I’m guessing the phosphor pour is a product of cost down measures, and for some reason I don’t think it’ll have as adverse of an effect this time. Largely because of the elevated chip that seems not to be of the flipped variety, therefore minimal blue light should hit the surrounding phosphor. Additionally, this looks like a good slice and dice candidate.

I hope it finds a niche in BLF.

44

Just got this email from Cree saying “News this month”
.
.

45

Hopefully it’s not a disappointment. What is the actual difference between XML and XPL. Is it just the footprint? or the vf aswell.

46

XM-L is 5050 footprint and xp-l is 3535. Die sizes are the same I believe. Not sure on vf. This one looks like the xp-l2, but isn’t flipchip since you can see the bond wires. Beam probably won’t be as nice as sst40 or aforementioned Luxeon V. Plus phosphor on the die too.

47

If I had to wager a guess I would say that because of the XML foot print this emitter will continue to show an increase in output at higher drive currents than the XPL. That yellow dome does make me a bit apprehensive about how the color quality will be. So far all of the yellow dome versions of crees LEDs have been a down grade in color blending IMO. Getting the super low VF like in XHP50.2, and XHP70.2 has sure been nice though.

To be honest I am surprised they made this at all. I was assuming XHP50.2 was their answer to 3V XML footprint. I will be trying some of these bad boys for sure :slight_smile:

48

Cree has provided a design example (a torch :slight_smile: ) for the XM-L3 that seems to show not too much tintshift over the beam, but a pic of a headlamp does not look good qua beam.
https://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/PortableLighting_XM-L3-TorchRerefenceDesign.pdf

49

8300K :open_mouth:

50

So if I’m interpreting this right, then what they showed in that mod/retrofit example is very misleading. Efficacy is barely improved and the xml3 used was COLD white. It seems to just show that if you run the emmiter at 5A, you get about 50% more output. Go figure…

51

I would bet these will be significantly cheaper than the quad-die emitters. Basically a 5mm footprint equivalent to what they designed the XP-G3 for - absolute highest efficiency from a cheap emitter for the lucrative street/area lighting industry.

52

A performance boost at 5A is nice. I’d like to see the voltage curves change over current input though. I wonder how they get 8300k though. The sample looks g0od, bit I’m wondering how they don’t have corona? This is definitely not a replacement for the xhp50.2 3 volt though, amd we’ll see how 9t compares to the sst40!

53

I’m also wondering why at over 8000K the efficiency is almost the same. Maybe the production version will be better?

54

No clue on bins either? How will it compare to the 7 year old XM-l2? I was thinking the xhp50.2 3v was going to replace the xm-l2, XM-l2, but obviously the cost difference is an issue for industrial applications. At $10 for a 50.2 vs $6 for a sst40 or $7 for an xp-l2 it makes sense for a new more efficient emitter.

55

It’s NiteCore TM06S which they make out to be way more nice than it really is with the XM-L2.

Actual beam of the flashlight with XM-L2.

What they show XM-L2 looks like in the TM06S, basically a crop of the hotspot only.

Considering that most of those type of reflectors always have all kind of bad artifacts, seems like a poor choice of testing their own LEDs on how they perfom, even if that was is not what they were trying to point out.

56

Marginally lower Vf than XM-L2.
At least now we know that it’s really not a flip chip.
Dome appears slightly smaller.
It’s slightly throwier, delivering 8.3 cd/lm rather than 8.0. The die might be smaller.
Huge CCT shift with current. :frowning:

57

There’s a product page with a datasheet already:

58

Comparing datasheets:
table(table#posts).
|LED|Thermal resistance (K/W)|Max current (A)|Vf at 3A|CRI|CCT (K)|
|XM-L2|2.5|3|~3.17|unrated to 90|2600-8300|
|XM-L3|2.2|5|~3.14|unrated|5000-6500|
|SST-40|1.2|6 (8 pulse)|~3.01|70|4500-7500|

59

chip looks good

its bright but no testing done yet, I got some U4 1A and 1B bins
Cheers

60

interested in results!