Why Not Optics?

[erix]

Howdy,

First post in 4 years! In my day gig I'm a design engineer of commercial lighting specializing in LED. Yes, I get to play with hot bright things all day and get paid for it.

I've been looking through many, many threads (gosh you guys are great machinists, programmers, fabricators and tinkerers...), and I think I'm going to throw a XR-E in one of my junky Mini Mags and see what happens.

I've used many different optics from many sources and one of the nicest I've seen is a new part from Khatod - the PL20808. It is SMALL, 15.6mm dia, 10.5mm high, and it snaps over the metal ring of the XR-E quite snugly. It is a very nice 8 degree spot with no nasty artifacts like die imaging, or circular striations.

So my question - Why don't you guys use optics?

ok,
erix

 

[LukeA]

Speak for yourself.

 

[StarHalo]

I think I'm going to throw a XR-E in one of my junky Mini Mags and see what happens.

You can do it with a new reflector and regulator for only $20 here: http://www.batteryjunction.com/tle-5k2.html

So my question - Why don't you guys use optics?

The only optic-ed light I have is a TLE-300 drop-in for a Mag; the beam looks a bit like a giant multi-pointed star, but it's a unique profile being one giant hotspot with no spill. While it works well in this application, I wouldn't want it on an EDC, where a good spot/spill balance is important - most EDC lights that have optics don't do this well.

 

[tx101]

The Malkoff P60 dropin uses a optic and it
has agreat beam

 

[nein166]

The original Sandwich Shoppe Drop-in Sandwiches were designed to use an optic - NX05 I believe.
I put a optic in the MiniMag I made for my Dad.
I used a triple cree optic for a fish tank light I made.

Though optics project more light forward the increase in LED output these days compensates for losses in reflectors.

 

[erix]

OK - I'm not the lone optic ranger here!

Spaghetti Cat! Your eerie silence and blank stare...
Can you fix your link for me?

ok,
erix

 

[collector]

That's a good one, first post in 4yrs, lolzzzzzzzz

I'm a throw-freak, I do like reflectors, don't really like sidespill.
Optics are indeed great throwers, I'm curious to see the one you have.
Know a source where these can be bought, or can you arrange for samples ? (I'd pay for them).

To answer the question, I do use optics.
Known lights with not so bad (but still ringy beams) I own
and still use:
Surefire KL1 with TIR
Surefire KL3 with TIR
Arc LS First Run with NX0x series optics,
Arc LS ver2 series with NX0x series optics, others also...

 

[nein166]

Homemade light with 2 kinds of optics by Holzleim
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=221261

 

[erix]

You can do it with a new reflector and regulator for only $20 here: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2861676

Spaghetti Cat. Your silent stare and mysterious link to reply to my own thread intrigues me...

ok,
erix

 

[monkeyboy]

Each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. In general, comparing equal diameter optic and reflector:

Optics can give better throw but most of the sidespill also goes into the throw. Optics are also more efficient (less light loss).
Reflectors usually give much nicer beam patterns, in particular, stippled reflectors. You also tend to get more sidespill which comes directly from the LED.

Of course this is a big generalisation and depends entirely on the design.

 

[LukeA]

Reflectors usually give much nicer beam patterns, in particular, stippled reflectors. You also tend to get more sidespill which comes directly from the LED.

That's completely a matter of taste. You're treating it as fact and that's disingenuous.

Also, optics can be made to virtually any beam pattern, unlike reflectors.

 

[Sub_Umbra]

The vast majority of my lights are reflectored.

For most of my needs I prefer very tight beams -- whether they are high or very low powered. I have four different lights in Elektro Lumens 'Blaster' bodies that utilize a ~6° optic. While it is not as tight as I would like, 6° is a very usable compromize for my needs. I like my optics because their performance is acceptable and they are very tough. They may scratch easily but they would seem to be much harder to break than a window, thus exposing the light's innards to the environment. That certainly has merit for those who demand reliability 'in back of beyond' or anywhere mission critical equipment replacements are hard to come by.

Some who build UV lights shun optics as some of the materials that they are composed of attenuate UV -- but then, that same problem occurs with UCL windows, too.

 

[StarHalo]

Whoops, I did indeed fudge the link, here's the correct link (also corrected in the post) to the $20 MiniMag Cree XRE drop-in kit: http://www.batteryjunction.com/tle-5k2.html

 

[greenlight]

One great feature about optics is the cool way they glow with glow paint under them.

 

[monkeyboy]

That's completely a matter of taste. You're treating it as fact and that's disingenuous.

There's a pretty good consensus here on CPF as to what constitutes a nice beam pattern.

Also, optics can be made to virtually any beam pattern, unlike reflectors.

I have never seen an optic that can replicate the beam pattern of a good stippled reflector. TIR optics need smooth surfaces in order to maintain the total internal reflection conditions. This tends to generate unwanted artifacts such as rings.

 

[Sub_Umbra]

There's a pretty good consensus here on CPF as to what constitutes a nice beam pattern...

Consensus is important only in politics, marketing and advertising. A 'consensus' about what constitutes 'a nice beam pattern' has no meaning and absolutely no importance in regards to what kind of beam some individual may require for some tasks that you have not yet imagined or may never comprehend. A broad study of cpf posts will yield so much that is so far outside of any consensus that many would come to the conclusion that any 'concensus' must be inherently limited and have no real redeeming value except in the broadest possible sense -- which only really represents the most pedestrian views expressed on this forum. Many do not come here in search of any consensus -- they come here to solve difficult lighting problems and the most interesting problems rarely have anything to do with consensus. Consensus is something you can get in two minutes in any hardware store. CPF, on the other hand, is a place where one may search for that one offbeat solution that some soul has already found that may just work for you, too. I don't care what the masses think. I search here to learn how to solve problems that the masses will never likely encounter.

The world is much bigger and more diverse than many are able to ever imagine.

 

[monkeyboy]

Consensus is important only in politics and advertising. A 'consensus' about what constitutes 'a nice beam pattern' has no meaning and absolutely no importance in regards to what kind of beam some individual may require for some tasks that you have not yet imagined.

I disagree with this statement entirely. "How nice a beam pattern looks" is just that. It has nothing to do with it's usability for specific tasks. In manufacturing a product, the opinion of the customer is what matters and majority rules.
e.g. most people here agree that a beam pattern with no artifacts and smooth transition between hotspot and spill is desirable.

The world is much bigger and more diverse than many are able to even imagine.

What exactly does that have to do with beam patterns?

 

[Sub_Umbra]

I disagree with this statement entirely. "How nice a beam pattern looks" is just that. It has nothing to do with it's usability for specific tasks. In manufacturing a product, the opinion of the customer is what matters and majority rules.
e.g. most people here agree that a beam pattern with no artifacts and smooth transition between hotspot and spill is desirable...

Everyone has their own opinion -- you have yours -- I have no problem with that.

...The world is much bigger and more diverse than many are able to ever imagine.

...What exactly does that have to do with beam patterns?

That statement only has to do with your perception of what's important. You are involved in a discussion on a thread where you refuse to even acknowledge the point of view of at least two who have voiced opposition to your generalized proclamations. You obviously have no idea of what we are talking about. It's ok. I can live with that. It's not that important. Your understanding is not required. I'm not writing this for you. I tend to write for those who are receptive to my views. I actually have something to say here that has no bearing on your views whatsoever. This is a searchable forum. It will be here for those who seek out the pointy parts of it. That's good enough.

Try to be happy.

 

[monkeyboy]

I actually have something to say here that has no bearing on your views whatsoever. This is a searchable forum. It will be here for those who seek out the pointy parts of it. That's good enough.

Try to be happy.

If you want to nitpick every little irrelevant issue in my posts then it is clear that you have nothing important to say here. At least I've tried to keep my posts relevant to the OP. You have not.

And judging by LukeA's snide comment on post #2, he couldn't care less about the OP either.

 

[Mike Painter]

Perhaps one of the reasons is because it seems hard to find out anything about them.
I have emailed people who carry the Sekonix line as well as asked about it in a thread.
No response.

They have optics specific for the P7 and it looks like you can add a filter to the lens to get different patterns of light.