Anything out ther brighter at a distance than our flashlight?

[kramer5150]

correct.

OK...
Your posts above are incorrect then. You are not increasing the output of the LED by doing this. You are merely salvaging stray or lost lumens and re-directing them.

If you really want to understand the optical efficiency of your design. Your PHDs need to measure the output of the bare emitter in a calibrated sphere. Then measure the lumen output of the system with the reflective optics. The difference in lumen output will show the overall efficiency of the optics.

 

[John_Galt]

We just run it a bit higher in voltage than it's rated for. We cool it down sufficiently to compensate and it will run constantly, slightly warm to the touch.

First, as you guys will undoubtedly find out... LED's aren't voltage driven. They're current driven. Driving more voltage into an LED is a failure waiting to happen, as is over-driving the emitter significantly...

You guys also need to rethink your cooling system in both designs. Using fans is a horrible idea. They waste power, increase size, increase complexity, have a short life span (relatively), and are a huge point of failure, possibly destroying the LED and driver if it fails, from the inability to cool itself effectively.

:shakehead


I also agree with Kramers last point.

 

[Batou00159]

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating" as they say in the UK.

And i see no pudding yet

Mmmmmmmmm pudding

 

[easilyled]

Time to unsubscribe from this thread. Bye-Bye :wave:

 

[enginyr]

OK...
Your posts above are incorrect then. You are not increasing the output of the LED by doing this. You are merely salvaging stray or lost lumens and re-directing them.

If you really want to understand the optical efficiency of your design. Your PHDs need to measure the output of the bare emitter in a calibrated sphere. Then measure the lumen output of the system with the reflective optics. The difference in lumen output will show the overall efficiency of the optics.

We have the ratio of about 2,200 lumens bare and about 700-800 lumens into a lumens sphere. I tried testing it at one meter with a lux meter but it when off the chart. At 5 meters it was about 10,000 lux but batteries weren't charged fully. The optics guys here said you can't just measure lux at a distance without measuring the entire area also.

Your posts above are incorrect then. You are not increasing the output of the LED by doing this. You are merely salvaging stray or lost lumens and re-directing them.

Yes that is exactly what the patent does. The final effect is higher led output.

 

[enginyr]

First, as you guys will undoubtedly find out... LED's aren't voltage driven. They're current driven. Driving more voltage into an LED is a failure waiting to happen, as is over-driving the emitter significantly...

You guys also need to rethink your cooling system in both designs. Using fans is a horrible idea. They waste power, increase size, increase complexity, have a short life span (relatively), and are a huge point of failure, possibly destroying the LED and driver if it fails, from the inability to cool itself effectively.

:shakehead


I also agree with Kramers last point.

Thank you for the tip. I did the mechanical design. They did all the electrical and optical. I would have loved to use a fanless design but the heat was too great along with the shear mass of a heat sink would be prohibitive. We have a dual stacked maglev fans that are redundant. These are prototypes just to prove the technology. Final products should be fully redesigned for mass production.

 

[kramer5150]

**EDIT**
I haev retraced my commentary in this post. It was a little rude and impolite. it was a gut-reaction.

Sorry about that.

 

[gswitter]

wow it looks like they made a head to fit on maglte d tube (from button-tube dimensions i figured it is d tube), that head is huge, a also see holes, i assume there is a fan there, but i might be wrong, at least this head on 4d tube, or longer, would be deadly defence weapon

You guys also need to rethink your cooling system in both designs. Using fans is a horrible idea. They waste power, increase size, increase complexity, have a short life span (relatively), and are a huge point of failure, possibly destroying the LED and driver if it fails, from the inability to cool itself effectively.

:shakehead

Anyways its just a prototype.

Back to the OP's original question...

Some of our members have gotten together in LA and done high output light shoot outs. Here's a couple threads on (if I recall correctly) the most recent: thread, thread. Their focus hasn't been LED lights, but LEDs have only just gotten to the point that they could (maybe) compete. If you're looking to answer your original question, some of those members might be worth contacting.

I'm curious to see if you're truly getting that much throw from the CBT-50. Getting great throw from LEDs with larger surface area has frustrated quite a few members here.

 

[enginyr]

Back to the OP's original question...

Some of our members have gotten together in LA and done high output light shoot outs. Here's a couple threads on (if I recall correctly) the most recent: thread, thread. Their focus hasn't been LED lights, but LEDs have only just gotten to the point that they could (maybe) compete. If you're looking to answer your original question, some of those members might be worth contacting.

I'm curious to see if you're truly getting that much throw from the CBT-50. Getting great throw from LEDs with larger surface area has frustrated quite a few members here.

CBT-90 is what we use. Regardless we can use our recycling collar on any led.

Thank you. I will sign up for the meet.

I'm signing off here since my intelligence is not up to par.

Thank you for the gracious welcome.

 

[BigusLightus]

I need a reality check. I must remember there is no perpetual motion. Period.

Just like radio frequencies, light can be focused/concentrated in many ways. There may even be ways that we have not yet found. I think this is just a case of minimizing losses and focusing into an intense tiny hotspot that throws well.

There may be something out there brighter at a distance. But we won't know til this company brings out some hardware to test. The question seems pointless to me. In the CPF community we have many contenders for the long throw crown but until we can do a real comparison the argument is again pointless.

So, if you are going to challenge CPF'rs to a light fight, please know your weapon better. And, actually have one to test and show.

James
KF4WXH

If it works you will probably make a lot of friends real fast.

 

[bullettproof]

CBT-90 is what we use. Regardless we can use our recycling collar on any led.

Thank you. I will sign up for the meet.

I'm signing off here since my intelligence is not up to par.

Thank you for the gracious welcome.

Honestly there are a lot of people on here that really know there poop when it comes to building reliable lights that are complex. I gave you a list of names to contact some of which might be near your location.

I assure you it would be worth your time to talk with these good people.I think it would be of benefit for all parties to learn from each other.:welcome:

 

[jirik_cz]

I tried testing it at one meter with a lux meter but it when off the chart. At 5 meters it was about 10,000 lux but batteries weren't charged fully. The optics guys here said you can't just measure lux at a distance without measuring the entire area also.

10k lux at 5 meters is a good value. That means 250 000 candela or 250 000 lux at 1 meter.

Beamshots ?

 

[kramer5150]

We have the ratio of about 2,200 lumens bare and about 700-800 lumens into a lumens sphere. I tried testing it at one meter with a lux meter but it when off the chart. At 5 meters it was about 10,000 lux but batteries weren't charged fully. The optics guys here said you can't just measure lux at a distance without measuring the entire area also.

Your posts above are incorrect then. You are not increasing the output of the LED by doing this. You are merely salvaging stray or lost lumens and re-directing them.

Yes that is exactly what the patent does. The final effect is higher led output.

... but simply re-directing the light output does not increase the output from the LED, it does not make the LED die any brighter. The LED is still emitting the same amount of light, with or without the optic system.

I have retracted my previous statement / post... It was rude. Sorry about that.

Hopefully we will see some production runs in the future.

 

[BigusLightus]

The DPR pic reminds me of the rear firing speaker cabinets from the 70's. Those were also designed for more efficient throw. Is it possible that the one third loss we commonly apply to emitter ratings just dropped a bit with this setup?

 

[MrGman]

You are correct. I am a mechanical engineer. still learning the optics side

I'm sure you understood that the true test is lighting an object at a distance.

This guy claims to be a mechanical engineer with no or very little understanding of optics (his own claim, from this and other posts he has made).

Most of his answers about the performance of this light have been questionable at best.

It still appears to me that his company is trying to advertise and sell licensing rights on his light collar device.

He has not yet seemed interested at all in getting an answer to his original thread question as to is there anything brighter out there! Especially since the main point would have been to have correctly posted lux numbers from the very beginning and ask is there something out there that is higher from a LED type light source. We haven't gotten a straight answer out of him yet about real lux numbers, or the differences between lux and lumens. If this was so important why aren't the "optics guys" the ones posting the questions and answers here?

I say this entire thing is bogus. If they knew what their actual downrange lux readings were they could simply look up what's published on Light-Reviews and see that they are brighter. This guy is fishing for something here but his answers are so convoluted its hard to know what.

 

[Jash]

Maybe what I'm about to say is a little off topic but once read you'll understand.

The OP has already achieved 'enlightened' status and clearly shows a lack of knowledge and enthusiasm for hand held lighting. I know that your number of posts raises your status, but in a forum like this where folks are seriously interested in their devotion to flashlights, there should be a question-are with a minimum number of correct answers to go to the next level, or something like that.

I often read questions (eg. can I use rcr123's in that?) from people who have made over 900 posts who should know the answer simply by being in here so much.

I've only been a member since late last year and can already tell you the specs on most lights between $40-200. And I only venture in here a couple of times a week.

I've said that now, won't bring it up again.

 

[Batou00159]

This guy is fishing for something here but his answers are so convoluted its hard to know what.

this is highly probable

 

[enginyr]

Hold tight fellas. One of our optics guys will log on and explain the technology asap. Sorry for the weak answers!

 

[thezug]

It appears there is some confusion as to the performance and capabilities of our technology. Maybe I can clear things up a bit.

The light recycling retro-reflector redirects light back to the phosphor of the white LED. Some light is re-emitted to the aperture, some to the reflector again and some is absorbed. The result is more light through the aperture and a warmer color temperature.

The output (lumens) of a system such as this narrow beam flashlight is increased by light recycling. If we compare the output of this flashlight with and without the reflector, it's about double. It could be more with a different LED and/or lens but the important thing is, the reflector increases output.

The 50mm lens is about F/1. The LED is a Luminous CBT-90. If we're getting around 800 lumens, that should give you all you need to know about brightness, LUX, radiance, whatever. Technically, this reflector can improve the performance of any LED and lens combination.

 

[MrGman]

So you are saying you measured 800 lumens out the front with the asperic lens in place and the light recycling collar in place at a given current and whatever voltage you have as an input? And secondly that without this recycler at the same given source voltage and current draw from the batteries or power source the real out the front lumens value would be approximately 50%? And in no way does the current draw go up when you use the light recycler but the lumens doubles out the front? Do I have that right?