XP-G2 Triple + Carclo = Squares?

Anyone else noticed this too? The optics you get form Illumination Supply projects a squarish beam instead of a circular one. Did Cree changed the viewing angle of the XP-G and XP-G2?

The hotspot should be uniform round at a distance. The spill however has always been squarish with my XPG's. Not so much with the Nichia's.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...-G2-vs-219-Reference-quality-tint-comparisons

XPG2, at least from what I've seen from my projects, does have tiny dose of squarish thing to the beam that reflects both with reflectored projects and projects that use optics with somehow new artifacts in the beam... which are nothing bad but compared to regular XPG, they are just there...

As for IS PCB's, they do have some inconsistency with centering and when reflowed following the base to the exact position, LEDs end up being non-centered with Carclo optics... thus some wiggling of LEDs during the process is needed and it's just experience that helps here to do it right the first time, move it for a tiny bit to where the LED would be more centered...

This is mostly visible with XPG2 LEDs, then XPG's in the second place then XPE2... Nichia 219 is the most grateful of them all and pretty much leaves beautiful beam output all the time...

But IS PCB + XPG2 even in worst possible scenario and 3 squares in the beam instead of one unique spot would only bother some serious white-wall hunters... majority of us USE these triples outdoors and pretty much don't even notice those tiny details...

I noticed this as well. Up close, and on white walls, the beam is not round. However when actually using the light to illuminate things in the distance (not very far) you can't notice it. This is because the carclo triples are made for XP-G emitters, not XP-G2 LEDs. I never noticed any irregularities with the original XP-Gs.

Mine was triangular in shape when closed up but it will look okie from far.
And i thought the optics were originally designed for XP-E instead?

- JonK

They were designed for XP-E. Carclo uses an aspheric area to condense the spill. The optics are optimized for XP-E, so that the projected image of the LED sits on top of the reflected hotspot. Stands to reason if the LED die is bigger, the image of the die will be bigger, leading to square "halo" around hotspot.

DellSuperman said:

Mine was triangular in shape when closed up but it will look okie from far.
And i thought the optics were originally designed for XP-E instead?

- JonK

Click to expand...

They are... but to get perfect beam, you need LEDs to be perfectly centered on PCB... and that means the printing on PCB needs to be perfect... so far not many affordable PCBs are out there... there is a rumor that we might soon get triple copper PCBs from certain retailer and we can only hope they will be close to perfect with centering... lowering the possibility of squares and triangular shapes (those are just far edges from each of squares that reflect on white wall when centering is off... and with IS PCB's it's pretty much - all the time)...

However, take in consideration that the domes on XPE2 and XPG2 are bigger than on XPE and XPG... so sometimes you get a situation that, due to bad centering, the optics is TOUCHING the LED on certain spot and that also inflicts the beam shape when white-wall hunting...

Best thing... get more of these PCB's, get optics, place over blank PCB and pick one that seems to be best printed vs optics... then solder on that one... the remain - toss away (or use for Nichia 219)... I think my usability percentage for these IS PCB's is around 40%... the rest is just - put aside and probably will never be used...

So I'm currently not the only one having issues with the triples. I asked because I got a triple XP-G2 setup waiting on the mail. Though, I'm not too sure which host I will be putting it on.

Tiresius said:

Anyone else noticed this too? The optics you get form Illumination Supply projects a squarish beam instead of a circular one. Did Cree changed the viewing angle of the XP-G and XP-G2?

Click to expand...

Yes. I have experienced the same thing with the XP-G2 LEDs and the Carlco narrow clear optics. The viewing angle of the XP-G is 125 degrees, while the XP-G2 has been changed to 115 degrees. I have resorted to using the narrow frosted optics with the XP-G2 LEDs. Otherwise, the artifacts are unbearably distracting.

Having said so, I've built 2 triples (XP-G2 & Nichia219) with narrow optics.
By far, they have been my favorite EDC drop-in despite the flaws with the beam pattern because the flood to throw ratio is just nice for my usage & I don't use them for white-wall hunting all the time.
In fact, I have a XP-G2 4000k waiting to be completed.

- JonK

If the squares bother you, try using an optic designed for the LED you are using.

datiLED said:

Yes. I have experienced the same thing with the XP-G2 LEDs and the Carlco narrow clear optics. The viewing angle of the XP-G is 125 degrees, while the XP-G2 has been changed to 115 degrees. I have resorted to using the narrow frosted optics with the XP-G2 LEDs. Otherwise, the artifacts are unbearably distracting.

Click to expand...

That's my biggest complaint about it when I went a 2x219/1xXP-G2 on the setup. The Cree emitter was significantly brighter and projected a horribly ugly square beam. So it seems like Cree in fact changed the G2 to a more narrow angle to increase throw capability?

bshanahan14rulz said:

If the squares bother you, try using an optic designed for the LED you are using.

Click to expand...

Got a link for another triple optic specifically for the G2's @ 20mm?

Tiresius said:

Got a link for another triple optic specifically for the G2's @ 20mm?

Click to expand...

I would also like a better optic for the G2's... I've built triple xpg's, g2's, and 219's and the g2's are my favorite even with the weird beam. I have built 2 of the triple 219's but I really don't like them...I guess I just cant find a good driver to run them at full potential off of a single 18650

I tot the simplest single cell driver would be the AMC7135. I build all my triples (in parallel) with that, but i stack 4 additional chips to bring the max current up to 4.2A..

- JonK

I have a triple 219 running off of a 12x7135 but with a single cell it just isn't very bright. If i use 2 x primary 123's in it it is much brighter but the driver gets hot fast with the excess voltage.

Bauer said:

I have a triple 219 running off of a 12x7135 but with a single cell it just isn't very bright. If i use 2 x primary 123's in it it is much brighter but the driver gets hot fast with the excess voltage.

Click to expand...

Hence why you'd want to run a NANJG 105c with additional chips stacked. I've done it before and was surprised at the brightness it can produce. Just be very careful with driving them too hard as the emitters will suffer.

Tiresius said:

Hence why you'd want to run a NANJG 105c with additional chips stacked. I've done it before and was surprised at the brightness it can produce. Just be very careful with driving them too hard as the emitters will suffer.

Click to expand...

What's the difference between the AMC and NANJG 105c?

Bauer said:

What's the difference between the AMC and NANJG 105c?

Click to expand...

They are the same thing. NANJG 105 is the generic name of the driver & AMC7135 is the name of the chips that is mounted on the driver that determines the current being drawn.

- JonK