Domes of the XT-E vs the XP-G, strength of each

So this might sound a bit weird, but i'm trying to determine if the domes of the XT-E are softer / more fragile / easier to damage then the XP-G's. The reason i ask is because i sell a product that requires the LED's to be mounted in a small area and oftem times the LED's get jostled around a bit.

I have never had problems with the XP-G LED's but since switching to the XT-E's customers complain that the domes are getting ripped off much to easily. I'm wondering if anyone else had heard of something similar to this. Thanks for the help!

Tell the people to stop jostling them around so much!

XP handling guide: http://www.cree.com/~/media/Files/Cree/LED%20Components%20and%20Modules/XLamp/XLamp%20Application%20Notes/XLampXP_SH.pdf
XT handling guide: http://www.cree.com/~/media/Files/C...XLamp/XLamp Application Notes/XLamp_XT_SH.pdf

Both state some of the same chemical incompatibilities and shear force.

Logically, you'd expect them to be different. You talking color LEDs? Perhaps the extraction texture on the XP-G is better at keeping stuck to the dome than the very crisp, smooth looking light extraction buildup of the XT-E.

Perhaps you can design something to protect the LED during installation and can be removed afterwards, once the LED is about to be sealed up in its final mounting place?

These are both White LED's. The reason the LED's get hit is because they are getting installed in a way where its not possible to see and you have to feel around as to where the LED and fixture go. Theres no way to avoid that part. Sure adding some protection would be useful but finding a material thats less fragile then glass but able to withstand the temperature would be difficult and expensive as well.
I would need to find a 3/4 hollow tube about 1.5 inches long that would 4-8 LED's mounted inside of it. The heat would be quite intense at such a close range

Whether the dome is silicone or glass, it's attached with optical silicone instead of glue. Some people use a conformal coating on these, others put up a shroud. I think the height of the dome leads to a mechanical (dis)advantage in prying up taller domes, though.

mds82 said:

So this might sound a bit weird, but i'm trying to determine if the domes of the XT-E are softer / more fragile / easier to damage then the XP-G's. The reason i ask is because i sell a product that requires the LED's to be mounted in a small area and oftem times the LED's get jostled around a bit.

I have never had problems with the XP-G LED's but since switching to the XT-E's customers complain that the domes are getting ripped off much to easily. I'm wondering if anyone else had heard of something similar to this. Thanks for the help!

Click to expand...

Have you considered adding a simple plastic (or metal plate) with holes in it where the LEDS are and enough clearance not to impact the output of the LED? That should allow fingers to glide over the top as opposed to "grabbing" the dome.

Semiman

This is a small picture of the light that i'm talking about. a simple plastic would get too hot and melt or get damaged too quickly. there wer 2 more LED's on the other side of this as well

Would it be possible to build up the cylinder structure closer to the LED domes to make them more recessed, or would that get in the way of things optically-speaking?

Some high temperature epoxies would be happy at LED temperatures.

glass tubing would affect output, but not that much. Might cut down a few percent of light output. You can even find fused quartz tubing if you want to use that for marketing the heat resistance or strength of the materials used. It would also make cleaning the things easier, because I imagine the environment that they are housed in is supposed to be sealed from the outside air, but still might have dust or vapors in there.