New current ratings for XP series lamps!

[foxtrot824]

Cree has just announced some new numbers on the XP series including and R3 XP-E and 1.5A drive current for the XP-Gs

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Cree-Raises-Performance-bw-2302549591.html?x=0&.v=1

 

[ma_sha1]

Yeah, I was planning on 4XPG driven to 1.6Amp each,
now I know it won't poof!

 

[Ajay]

Well I'm a bit confused. This is for new XPG and XPE leds OR are they just now saying it's ok to drive the leds harder? I did look through the new XPG and XPE binning sheets dated 10th Feb 2010 but that didn't help.

 

[Paul_in_Maryland]

From the announcement:

In addition, the maximum forward current for XLamp XP-G LEDs is now raised to 1.5 A, delivering up to 493 lumens at 92 lumens per watt. XP-G LEDs deliver high efficacy at high currents, which can allow new high-performance LED applications where more light in less space is necessary.​

The XP-G is supposed to be more efficient than an XP-E, but 92 lumens per watt is less efficient. Is CREE saying that at high currents, the XP-G becomes less efficient but is prefered when power efficiency is secondary to space efficiency?

 

[ifor powell]

The 92 Lumens per Watt is the figure at the new 1.5A max drive curent with a die rempreture of 25C. I think where as the standard figure quated is the 350ma number.

In practice I don't think the xpg change makes much real world differeance at the point where you are up going 700-1000-1200 ma with an xpg you are not actualy getting that much more light because in most portable aplications the die tempreture starts going way up and that lowers the Lumens considerable. Cree for there numbers keep the die at 25C which means somthing like putting it on a block of ice which in not very practical in a flashlight. The aplication that will benifit most will be people doing dive lights how have the best chance of keeping the led cool.

The higher bin warmer colours is a nice addition and if your looking for a thrower the an r3 xpe at 1000ma will be an alternative to the XRE r2 at 1000ma.

 

[saabluster]

Well I'm a bit confused. This is for new XPG and XPE leds OR are they just now saying it's ok to drive the leds harder? I did look through the new XPG and XPE binning sheets dated 10th Feb 2010 but that didn't help.

This applies retroactively. All new and old can be run at the new levels. Cree is conservative when they rate their LEDs current handling ability. This change means they have more long term tests completed to show the LEDs can handle it.

From the announcement:

In addition, the maximum forward current for XLamp XP-G LEDs is now raised to 1.5 A, delivering up to 493 lumens at 92 lumens per watt. XP-G LEDs deliver high efficacy at high currents, which can allow new high-performance LED applications where more light in less space is necessary.​

The XP-G is supposed to be more efficient than an XP-E, but 92 lumens per watt is less efficient. Is CREE saying that at high currents, the XP-G becomes less efficient but is prefered when power efficiency is secondary to space efficiency?

The 92 lumens per watt for the XP-G is with it at 1.5A. Run the XP-E at that level and you will not get anywhere near those levels of efficiency.

 

[jchoo]

Hmm... I'm thinking 4 or 5 XPGs on a peltier/heatsink housing, x4, for off-road lights... this is good news

 

[foxtrot824]

I'm a big fan of the XP-E beam pattern so I look forward to the R3s and possibly upgrading a Quark with them, not that it would be an amazing difference.

 

[spencer]

That is unreal. From jtr1962's thread, his got 460 lumen at five watts. That's 92 lumen/watt. Just a couple of years ago this would have been unheard of.

 

[foxtrot824]

That is unreal. From jtr1962's thread, his got 460 lumen at five watts. That's 92 lumen/watt. Just a couple of years ago this would have been unheard of.

Even in the past year how the numbers have increased!

 

[tstartrekdude]

*waits for welight to tell us he has R3 xp-e's and Q3 WW's in stock*

 

[trout]

Is it worth the extra heat and power consumption I just did a comparison using an XPG R5 at 1000 ma and 1500 ma .

 

[foxtrot824]

Is it worth the extra heat and power consumption I just did a comparison using an XPG R5 at 1000 ma and 1500 ma .

You may have a point

 

[luckybucket]

Absolutely!!!!

 

[Bullzeyebill]

I think that the eye is going to see more that those two camera pictures can show. It is like when I go from 71 lumens to 100 lumens with my Ra Executive Clicky, Hi CRI. My eyes can see the difference, something a camera may not be able to pick up.

Bill

 

[luckybucket]

Especially at longer distances where you need all the light you can get. Most of my lights run on low all the time anyway, but I like to have maximum drive current for the occasional long distance illumination.

 

[znomit]

You say you have R3 flux XP-Es but I don't see them. Do you?

Its says R3 and R2 on the same LED
XPEWHT-L1-WH0-R3-0-01 R2 Flux WH Tint
http://www.cutter.com.au/proddetail.php?prod=cut829

 

[saabluster]

Its says R3 and R2 on the same LED
XPEWHT-L1-WH0-R3-0-01 R2 Flux WH Tint
http://www.cutter.com.au/proddetail.php?prod=cut829

Is there an echo in here?

You don't show one on your site. It says it is R3 on one part and "R2 flux" on the same line.