gcbryan
Flashlight Enthusiast
Just designing a light on paper (I'm looking for a job so money is tight at the moment therefore this is just on paper for a while).
Which would in reality give the best result, 3 XP-G R4 emitters in a head with those tiny built in reflectors for each emitter or 1 SST-50 using a well designed reflector?
Best result meaning a reasonably tight focus (for use as a dive light and not as a video light) with some spill.
This would be for a top end of approx 1,000 lumen. The XP-G would do this with with 3 amp and the SST-50 would need at least 4 amp so the XP-G would be more efficient.
You could use an aspheric with the SST-50 but I would want some spill so that leaves either a reflector or some other type of optic.
The driver would probably favor the XP-G but I'd like to have the modes as 100%, 80% and 40%.
It would have a magnetic selector ring. Turning clockwise would be 80% and 40%. Turning counterclockwise would be 100% which would actually be used as a turbo mode only.
This would allow for approximately a 2 hour burn time on (2) 18650 li-ions in 80% mode and a 1 hour dive could be done on 100%.
The logic of this design would be that it is in the ball park of competing with a 21W HID (1,000 lumen) and is capable of 2 (hour long) dives when used in the same range as a MC-E at 670 lumen (80%). The 80% competes nicely with a 10W HID.
It has the option of going to 1,000 lumen only when that's really needed so as to keep this a non-cannister light.
It would have a 4-6 mm glass lens and two o-rings in the lens area...one just in front of the lens and one in a groove in a shelf where the screwed in bezel/lens assembly would rest.
It would have the batteries be changed through a screw in tail cap with attachment point on the tail cap (2 o-rings here). The body would screw into the head with 2 o-rings as well.
The internal heat sink would be of sufficient size and with the addition of thermal compound would transfer the heat to the outer body Water would do the rest.
All matte black, with a standard bezel (no attack bezel) and of deep design (many threads). There would be another o-ring here.
My sense is it's not a matter of how many potential failure points a light has if it's designed properly. It's better to change the battery via a tail cap and after assembly the head, bezel and all other connections are left alone unless something needs to be replaced. With threads that's easy as well. Ease of emitter and driver replacement would be incorporated into the designed with screw in emitter and a large spot for the driver to incorporate future modifications.
For visualization the light is similar to the "ugly light" except that it's all black, standard bezel also with deeper threads, thicker lens plus the addition of an o-ring, no external heat fins, and a standard attachment point in the tail cap.
It would be used with a Goodman Handle or a similar "soft" bungee design.
My thinking is that all costs should be attempted to be kept down in the design since any light designed today will be obsolete in the future so expensive lights are just a waste of money. Any light made today should be designed so that it can easily be upgraded in the near future.
Thoughts? Much of this post is just a description but comments are welcome. The initial question however is regarding the better choice of 3 XP-G or SST-50.
Which would in reality give the best result, 3 XP-G R4 emitters in a head with those tiny built in reflectors for each emitter or 1 SST-50 using a well designed reflector?
Best result meaning a reasonably tight focus (for use as a dive light and not as a video light) with some spill.
This would be for a top end of approx 1,000 lumen. The XP-G would do this with with 3 amp and the SST-50 would need at least 4 amp so the XP-G would be more efficient.
You could use an aspheric with the SST-50 but I would want some spill so that leaves either a reflector or some other type of optic.
The driver would probably favor the XP-G but I'd like to have the modes as 100%, 80% and 40%.
It would have a magnetic selector ring. Turning clockwise would be 80% and 40%. Turning counterclockwise would be 100% which would actually be used as a turbo mode only.
This would allow for approximately a 2 hour burn time on (2) 18650 li-ions in 80% mode and a 1 hour dive could be done on 100%.
The logic of this design would be that it is in the ball park of competing with a 21W HID (1,000 lumen) and is capable of 2 (hour long) dives when used in the same range as a MC-E at 670 lumen (80%). The 80% competes nicely with a 10W HID.
It has the option of going to 1,000 lumen only when that's really needed so as to keep this a non-cannister light.
It would have a 4-6 mm glass lens and two o-rings in the lens area...one just in front of the lens and one in a groove in a shelf where the screwed in bezel/lens assembly would rest.
It would have the batteries be changed through a screw in tail cap with attachment point on the tail cap (2 o-rings here). The body would screw into the head with 2 o-rings as well.
The internal heat sink would be of sufficient size and with the addition of thermal compound would transfer the heat to the outer body Water would do the rest.
All matte black, with a standard bezel (no attack bezel) and of deep design (many threads). There would be another o-ring here.
My sense is it's not a matter of how many potential failure points a light has if it's designed properly. It's better to change the battery via a tail cap and after assembly the head, bezel and all other connections are left alone unless something needs to be replaced. With threads that's easy as well. Ease of emitter and driver replacement would be incorporated into the designed with screw in emitter and a large spot for the driver to incorporate future modifications.
For visualization the light is similar to the "ugly light" except that it's all black, standard bezel also with deeper threads, thicker lens plus the addition of an o-ring, no external heat fins, and a standard attachment point in the tail cap.
It would be used with a Goodman Handle or a similar "soft" bungee design.
My thinking is that all costs should be attempted to be kept down in the design since any light designed today will be obsolete in the future so expensive lights are just a waste of money. Any light made today should be designed so that it can easily be upgraded in the near future.
Thoughts? Much of this post is just a description but comments are welcome. The initial question however is regarding the better choice of 3 XP-G or SST-50.
Last edited:
