So I've been wanting a 18650 thrower, but just as I was about to buy one, the new emitter appeared on the horizon. I'm going to exercise heroic self-control and wait a few months before the choices are clear. Surely by year's end there will be a DBS and a Tiablo and a Jetbeam and maybe even a 7777 thrower, et al. Ya think? :thumbsup:
XP-G throwers! The agony and the ecstasy!
- Thread starter zemmo
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
Yeah, I know, there's always something better in the pipeline, and, you know, I'm not completely in the dark, got half a dozen headlamps and half a dozen flashlights, but that's the line in the sand I've drawn, at least until the tide comes in...
BTW, does the DBS V3 not work with the AW 18650? I see Dereelight sells a 18700 battery on their site.
I hear ya man. I am waiting on neutral XPG drop in for my 6p and new Zebralights. I got no headlamps.
Hold on buddy you're not alone.:shakehead
TomInOregon
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 71
kramer5150
Flashaholic
Its a great time to be a CPF'er!!
After an ~18 month delay (working on multi-die emitters), it now looks like the technology is once again focused on efficiency and getting more lumens out of less current and a smaller package :twothumbs
My last two purcheses (ITP-A3, P100C2) have been XPE-Q5 lights and WOW, talk about a LOT of light for not a lot of dough. The P100C2 in particular has really surprised me. Ceiling bounce comparing it to my 204 Lumen DIY XRE-Q5 builds, the P100C2 emits just as much light. Whats so impressive is that the P100C2 only draws .8A from a 17670, while my DIY draws 1.25A from an 18650...
Its also just as impressive with 2x16340 (8.4V), only drawing .42A from the pair. My brightest 2x16340 DIY builds need .65A to obtain the same amount of light OTF.
I'm smiling ear to ear... the XPG-R5 must be INSANE
After an ~18 month delay (working on multi-die emitters), it now looks like the technology is once again focused on efficiency and getting more lumens out of less current and a smaller package :twothumbs
My last two purcheses (ITP-A3, P100C2) have been XPE-Q5 lights and WOW, talk about a LOT of light for not a lot of dough. The P100C2 in particular has really surprised me. Ceiling bounce comparing it to my 204 Lumen DIY XRE-Q5 builds, the P100C2 emits just as much light. Whats so impressive is that the P100C2 only draws .8A from a 17670, while my DIY draws 1.25A from an 18650...
Its also just as impressive with 2x16340 (8.4V), only drawing .42A from the pair. My brightest 2x16340 DIY builds need .65A to obtain the same amount of light OTF.
I'm smiling ear to ear... the XPG-R5 must be INSANE
Last edited:
old4570
Flashlight Enthusiast
Throw 
XP-G R5 XP-E reflector [ P60 ] = 4300Lux @ 1meter 18650
XR-E R2 XR-E reflector [ P60 [ = 6500Lux @ 1meter 18650
XR-E R2 XR-E reflector [ P60 ] = 7200Lux @ 1meter 18650 @ 1.6A
XP-G R5 XR-E reflector [ P60 ] = 3400Lux @ 1meter RCR123A
XP-E R2 XP-E reflector [ P60 ] = 4800Lux @ 1meter RCR123A
XR-E R2 XR-E reflector [ P60 ] = 5400Lux @ 1meter RCR123A
MTE SSC P7 = 4000Lux @ 1meter 18650
Akoray AK-16 = 3500Lux @ 1meter RCR123A
Sacredfire 007 = 6300Lux @ 1meter RCR123A
I hope this helps ...
XP-G R5 XP-E reflector [ P60 ] = 4300Lux @ 1meter 18650
XR-E R2 XR-E reflector [ P60 [ = 6500Lux @ 1meter 18650
XR-E R2 XR-E reflector [ P60 ] = 7200Lux @ 1meter 18650 @ 1.6A
XP-G R5 XR-E reflector [ P60 ] = 3400Lux @ 1meter RCR123A
XP-E R2 XP-E reflector [ P60 ] = 4800Lux @ 1meter RCR123A
XR-E R2 XR-E reflector [ P60 ] = 5400Lux @ 1meter RCR123A
MTE SSC P7 = 4000Lux @ 1meter 18650
Akoray AK-16 = 3500Lux @ 1meter RCR123A
Sacredfire 007 = 6300Lux @ 1meter RCR123A
I hope this helps ...
csshih
Flashlight Enthusiast
XP-G have a much bigger die than XP-G, XR-E... they don't throw as well. the source is to big.
Shorty66
Enlightened
I dont think thats the real problem. The lens of the xp-g just has a different size and doesnt fit the xr-e reflector which is use to measure the lux readings in this case.
I think we will have to wait till suitable reflectors are released to compare the throw correctly.
I think we will have to wait till suitable reflectors are released to compare the throw correctly.
old4570
Flashlight Enthusiast
The XP-G itself is more flood than throw ..
So you will need a new reflector design for sure ..
I just tested a bunch of lights so you could see the difference .
But this is a measurement of throw , not actual light output .
So you will need a new reflector design for sure ..
I just tested a bunch of lights so you could see the difference .
But this is a measurement of throw , not actual light output .
kramer5150
Flashaholic
Hes measuring light intensity at a given point in space, not total emitted lumens.
But it is the problem. The real problem. Less surface brightness=less throw regardless of the total emitted lumens. The XP-G has less surface brightness for a given current level than the XR-E or XP-E.
Shorty66
Enlightened
Yeah, i know that surface brightness is the main factor for throw if the reflector is well engineered.
But wouldn´t you have to compare "virtual surface brightness" as the surface is behind the initial lens on the die?
as the lens on the xp-g is a lot smaller than that of the xr-e is don`t really know which virtual surface brightness is higher...
But wouldn´t you have to compare "virtual surface brightness" as the surface is behind the initial lens on the die?
as the lens on the xp-g is a lot smaller than that of the xr-e is don`t really know which virtual surface brightness is higher...
^Gurthang
Flashlight Enthusiast
So the long & the short of it.... current XRE / XPE P60 reflectors are NOT optimum for XP-G.
Next question, how hard can you drive and XP-G when it mounted on a big heatsink for a M@G? 1.2A? 1.5A? higher??
Next question, how hard can you drive and XP-G when it mounted on a big heatsink for a M@G? 1.2A? 1.5A? higher??
csshih
Flashlight Enthusiast
If you compare the Spacial Distribution on the datasheets, you will see that the XP-G/XP-E is more distributed than the XR-E,right?
XR-E Page 8:http://www.cree.com/Products/pdf/XLamp7090XR-E.pdf
XP-G Page 5:http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/XLampXP-G.pdf
XP-E Page 12: http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/XLampXP-E.pdf
Shorty66
Enlightened
You are right. Thats what i meant with "virtual surface brightness" and the xp-g indeed has a broader spatial distribution.
As the Xp-g is overall brighter than the XR-E for a given current it remains unclear, though if the throw is better on the XR-E for a given current.
The design of the XR-E for sure is the more effcient thrower but as the overall efficiency is lower it might be a close battle.
As the Xp-g is overall brighter than the XR-E for a given current it remains unclear, though if the throw is better on the XR-E for a given current.
The design of the XR-E for sure is the more effcient thrower but as the overall efficiency is lower it might be a close battle.
Even if the xr-e has a higher surface brightness, its viewing angle is only 90° compared to 125° for the xp-g, what means less light hits the reflector and get thrown .
I would guess that a with a specially designded reflector the xp-g will outthrow a xr-e with a reflector of the same diameter...even with less surface brighness.
I would guess that a with a specially designded reflector the xp-g will outthrow a xr-e with a reflector of the same diameter...even with less surface brighness.
Shorty66
Enlightened
You got a point there.
But keep in mind, that the bigger angle also deserves a better shaped reflector.
The reflector has to be more parabolic for a wider angle.
Some lights with xr-es just use conical reflectors which often work well enough. Perhaps it wont be so easy with the XP-G
But keep in mind, that the bigger angle also deserves a better shaped reflector.
The reflector has to be more parabolic for a wider angle.
Some lights with xr-es just use conical reflectors which often work well enough. Perhaps it wont be so easy with the XP-G
