Philosophical Musings Ch.2: Output

Way back when, I started the first thread of Philosophical Musings to explore the concept of "throw" In that thread, we had a stimulating discussion about this most basic aspect of the lights we choose. Well, with the recent work in ultra-high output lights, it's time for the next installment. Let's talk output.

Recent times have been a fertile period for high and ultra-high output mod light designs. From Kenshiro's astonishing Ken4 250W, 10,000 lumen monster in a Banana Vector spotlight body, to my own Aurora Project to Crosman451's insane "Sleeper", it seems that the very boundaries of how small and how bright a light can get have been stretched to levels once considered impossible. Combine high output with a huge reflector such as S4MadMan's Madman HID or Sway's HID Blitz 240 conversion and you have a class of lights that is not only brighter than anything most of us might ever have seen in a handheld light, but also capable of illuminating subjects at extreme distance. Even the mythical 1 kilowatt limit now seems attainable in a portable light.

So my question is this: Why do we keep pushing the brightness limits? What does it achieve? How bright, how long running and how portable can and should a light be? What else is there left to be achieved and at what cost? What does 10,000 lumens mean? 20,000? 50,000?

Let me start the ball rolling with my own thoughts as I considered the next projects to follow the Aurora. Once we had identified the light engines that were capable of the outputs we had previously only dreamt of and the battery systems that were capable of supporting them "how bright" became almost a meaningless question. The answer to which was simply, how bright do you want it to be? With the right host, the right LE and the right power system, anything was possible and the execution was limited only by dollars. I had drawn up plans for a project code named "Insanity" which would have used three 100W MR16s bulbs and a special 100W 4-degree 111-type bulb for the needle-like throw. Yes, 400W in a handlheld spot. But then as I started specing the parts for this project, I asked myself why only 3 MR16's? Why not six in a hex arrangement with the 111 in the center? Hell, it'd look like the main reflector in the giant Palomar telescope. Then my mind started reeling from the possibilities. I realized that lumens had now become a commodity. Bright was cheap because we now knew the secrets. The genie was out of the bottle.

Eventually, I shelved the "Insanity" project not because it was too difficult or too costly, but rather because it held no challenge. It would have been too easy and would have broken no new ground. So now I'm taking some time off to consider the next "grand challenges" in light modding.

Wilkey

Following Ginseng again, hehe

So what does the incandescent master do now? No more challenges to peak his interest /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Ok, so we've all read this "Way back when, I started the first thread of Philosophical Musings to explore the concept of "throw"" of yours Ginseng? Got a linky? (hey, not everyone is a Ginseng groupie, ya know /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif )...Yes???

Then we've all read the very latest recent posts of the last month over here discussing the special (expensive!) Maxabeam reflector, which is partially responsible for that laser narrow beam control, yes? Follow the discussion about the Maxabeam reflector from 'newbie' CPF member Ra starting at post #623611 Thor 10-Million Candle Power Spotlight ???


WA 25w, 1850 lumen HID 3/4in diameter capsule

This pdf file M21N002 specs the bare capsule HID which can run off of various ballasts, to which we could attain 1850lumens or about 71lm/w at 25w 2.6 amp current (easily attainable by today's AA NiMH's...woohoo, or better yet Li-Ion in smaller form factor?). So we have this capsule which will give 75w of incandescent output at much lower current draws, and more importantly 1.27mm arc gap. Unlike the purposely designed D-cell diameter bases of the 10w HID parts, the M21N002 is only .744in in diameter (around 18-19mm) sans ballast. All that is keeping us from putting this potent LE in a very small diameter body, is someone to design a smaller ballast, with method for appropriate heat dissipation (hmm, how about a fan from a sub-notebook computer?). Yeah, I think we get get huge outputs from huge reflectors and lights using incandescent, for modest dollars. For bigger dollars we can get higher outputs from smaller HID's.

Until maybe 2008-2010, when Ginseng's will be busy with his taking children to school and no longer have the luxury of these times for philosophizing, we will not have LED's match the luminous efficiency of HID's. As complicated and difficult to deal with as HID presently are, it holds the most promise in the near future. IMHO. Plus those wicked nasty glaringly intense arcs have it all over incandescent in pure retina burning capability /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif. Price is the usual consideration. Get WA to make a special run of ballasts? Yeah, sure; for how many units minimum and what price, as the capsule by itself is listed in singles at $210! How do we entice a WA engineer or other company to design a ballast for this application?

So, you've already read the Osram HMI data on the 200w & 250w ? Both output 16,000lm, with the 200w being a fat/squat shaped capsule, kind of like horizontally mounted filament bulb. But the arc length on these is the same approximate 4mm as the 35/50w autoHID capsules. So this is a size that with adequately designed reflector, can possibly out punch a Maxabeam in both throw and flood capabilities. Price again, well the 200 or 250w Osram HMI can be had for around $200 (thanks to the use in the movie/video business). But ballasts are typically priced well over $1,000, AFAIK; So you could build a bigger/badarse Maxabeam2, but it would cost about the same or more than a Maxabeam /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif But that would be the 'ultimate' relatively small handheld spotlight.

One thing I do not find convincing (or I am not interpreting the words correctly) in Ra's argument is that larger reflectors will not get you more throw. Sure if they are low quality, maybe to some extent and true higher wattage bulbs will not get more throw but bigger wall of light /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif ; but why use huge reflectors on big giant search lights if larger reflectors do not harness the larger arc gaps of higher wattage HID? The contention that the 75w Maxabeam and 175w Megaray have short-arc is somewhat of a misnomer. It is better to think of them as 'shorter'-arc HID. For a 'short-arc Xenon capsule of 10,000w as for IMAX projection and the like, is quite wider than 4mm. You may not get a true pencil beam from a 4mm arc HID in say, Sway's mod; but bump it up from a 50w to 200w and you'll certainly notice a difference in overall light output! Get a higher quality reflector, as Ra implies; it will get you greater throw, combined with massive lumens /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin07.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin07.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin07.gif All in a package that does not require a huge/heavy battery.

For most uses, I'd rather have that little C-cell body size ~1850lm 25w HID...errr, "FistFullOfLumens" The FFOL light. With a near instantaneous, quick-start ballast of course /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Here you go:

Philosophical Musings Ch.1: Throw

Project Aurora

Mule Prototype

The Sleeper

I had a hard time finding Kenshiro's original Ken4 post. I think it was Mr.TedBear who posted it though.

Wilkey

Let me try adding something to these musings and take a different tack. To me, more lumens via more power via the right equipment is now really only understood. It still hasn't really been done.

By done, I mean these lights haven't been made generally available to someone who might like one, without tons of cash and the right CPF connections. That's no. 1. No. 2, most of these lights have been accomplished with output being the primary goal. For a light to truly be successful, (and really be a flashlight, other than just a good science/engineering project) it must be carryable, rechargeable internally, not too huge or heavy, and within reach financially to the average CPFer that isn't able to shell out 400+ bucks. Also, runtime is a major factor for a handheld. Around an hour is really the cutoff to me for a rechargeable light. Massive output is great, but if it lasts only 10 minutes, what can you use it for besides CPFish proclivities? Massive output is great, but how about if it declines too quickly or sharply (regulation!), or melts the host if run for too long?

To me, these are much tougher challenges to incorporate into a light. This is why, to me, the MC60 is still King because it is 3D length, bright, charges internally, and has well over an hour runtime with Ginseng's 4Ah cells. There are other combos to be sure, but this one is the best that is within reach of most everyone here without too much trouble (the only really necessary extra part, the WA 01160 bulb, is available off the shelf).

In short, success in the lab is one thing. Putting it on the shelves is another. Even our "shelves". I'm not talking about starting a business or mass marketing or anything (my trade, actually), but just making a lumen-monster that can really be used and useful as a true Flashlight.

Ginseng, I have followed your work closely, as you know. I have nothing but huge respect for your work and ability, as it is well ahead of my meager abilities and knowledge. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowdown.gif I am only suggesting that perhaps you take a new look at what might constitute success or the Flashlight Final Frontier (for me, Portable Daylight). As an example, witness the EDC efforts of the Firefly, Mr. Bulk, EL and Sandwich Shoppe offerings. From the labs to our pockets, but always conscious of useability. Even if someone else does the assembing or sales or whatever, those are successful products in my book because they are just that; products that have some practicality and are fairly available. Now, still being respectful of you, these are things that might not appeal to you in any way, something I could certainly appreciate. What do you think?

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm hugely envious of your Aurora and want an internally charging one I could potentially afford! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Brightness limits are pushed because they can be, and will continue to be pushed until the last light junkie leaves this earth. BUT, like Ginseng previously mentioned, the "genie is out of the bottle" and a brighter light is not as much of a challenge as it once was.

So now that we near the "so what" stage when it comes to total output, the next trick becomes putting that same output into a smaller package and making it more versatile...photon management if you will...going from Arc AA dim to Aurora+ bright with HID color balance in a package the size of a E2.

Ra's argument is correct. The larger the reflector the worse off you are. Never foprget the abberations and the larger the reflector the larger the abberations and consequent loss of light on the target. Also remember that the surface is to have a curvature that does not vary by more than fractions of a wavelength throughout. I made the fun request for just such a reflector (about 6" diameter) and it was not to vary by more than 0.5 micron at any point. The approximate price was $8 million. This is Hubble stuff. So now you have an idea of what it will cost to have the "right" deep formed reflector. Now lets talk about the size of the plasma objective....

I think there is some misunderstanding about reflectors. The size of the reflector does not neccessarily affect throw. All things being equal though, a larger reflector will ALWAYS be a better reflector. This is because the larger reflector has HIGHER tolerances for imperfections in the reflector. Just think about any optical device, if you are using a 10mm lens that has a scratch compared to a 10M lens with the same scratch, all things being equal, you probably won't even notice the scratch on the 10M lens. For reflector quality, size DOES matter.

As far as throw/collimating ability, from a physics point of view determining a better 'throwing' refelctor is quite simple. Assume that the filament will be located at the focus of the parabola that is rotated to create the reflector's surface. All of the light that doesn't hit the reflector will be lost as spill light/corona light. The angle I've seen of near all reflectors I've seen is something like 45 degrees from the focus to the edge of the reflector. This means that roughly 75% of the light is reflected out, with 25% spilled out the front. (Mag reflectors are pretty much 45 degrees. My TEC40 is something like 60 degrees wide, LOTS of spill.) Therefore, if you want more throw for a given reflector, don't change the focal point, but extend the reflector out more to capture a greater angle of light. For example, take the Carley 1940 reflector. It has a 2" diameter and 1.3" O.L. If you could get a 2" diameter reflector with something like 4" overall length and the same focal point, you would absolutely increase throw.

As far as output, I'm a fan of using near flashing bulbs to turn day into night, but lately I've been trying to think of more practical uses for these hotwire flashlights. I have to admit, I don't have a MC, but I really, really want one. I have an idea that maybe someone can run with. Instead of increasing light wattage, what about increasing light efficacy? What's the most efficient light source? My guess is that flourescent kicks incandescent and LED's butts hands down. It's just too big a light source to focus properly.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/factsheets/eelight.html


High-pressure sodium lighting is becoming the most common type of outdoor lighting. It provides 90 to 150 lumens per watt—an efficiency exceeded only by low-pressure sodium lighting. High-pressure sodium lamps are also reliable and have long service lives. Their color is a warm white, and their color rendition ranges from poor to fairly good depending on design and intended use.

Time to make a high-pressure sodium light? HMMM??

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Let me respond. brUdderman, as always, I've got to reread and think about your post.

Phase,
You bring up some valid points. You identified a few characteristics that are of value to you and I suspect these are shared by quite a few CPFers in terms of their "practical" lights. The practical performance and design envelope is always more demanding because of the breadth of the requirements. I liken this to the challenge in designing a good $25,000 car that gets 35MPG, can seat 5, hauls their luggage, can tow a boat, do 0-60 in under 6 seconds and looks rugged yet sexy and has the build quality of a Mercedes. This is "usefulness" and is a highly subjective quantity.

Aside from considerations of "usefulness" or "practicality" is the work that is more pure in the sense that one or two given attributes are weighted heavily against all others. In some cases brightness, in others, runtime. Although these works could be considered less useful or practical, they serve a very key purpose in exploring to the hilt a given approach to achieving a desired end. For example, the Caterham 7 track car. Won't carry your luggage or a baby seat and it won't run long, but it will beat a Porsche Turbo 996 (or just about any other street car) around any given racetrack. It is "pure" and true in its design intent which makes it no less valid than a Honda Accord.

As such, I subscribe to the belief that usefulness and practicality are not the "final frontier." I also cannot agree with the assertion that a creation could be considered desirable or successful only if is commercially available (on whatever scale) or affordable (by whatever standard). By this criteria, the Porsche 959, MacLaren F1 and Weigert Vector W12 were abject failures. I do acknowledge that it could be considered one type of success.

Now, I don't equate my projects with those icons but I do draw the parallel and FWIW, the Aurora did engender such "desire" that even though I could not execute a production run, two other parties are doing exactly that based on the eminently impractical prototype I developed. I found this to be immensely satisfying.

Big Honu,
I do agree that one possible next step would be to engage in photon management. And while I am not daunted by the prospect of attempting to do so, the technology is still expensive and likely to result in creations even more impractical than what we see today. I'm talking about lithium ion cells, PWM regulation for incandescents and low voltage ballasts for arc-type light engines.

In my opinion, we're starting to move out of the "cheap and easy" phase of modification and design and into the "dollars talk" phase. This was bound to happen as research efforts exhaust the available off-the-shelf technology and start to place nontraditional demands on these systems.

Soloco,
I've studied reflector profiles and a deeper reflector will indeed result in greater efficiency as measured by the solid angle of the light that is actually reflected/collimated. However, the parabolic equation which governs the reflector geometries dictates that if you retain the same OD but increase the depth (OL), the focal length must necessarily decrease.

The only problem with HPS (besides the large light generating capsule) is the startup time. IIRC, it can be quite a bit longer than even an HID.

Wilkey

[ QUOTE ]
Ginseng said:
.... PWM regulation for incandescents.....

In my opinion, we're starting to move out of the "cheap and easy" phase of modification and design and into the "dollars talk" phase. This was bound to happen as research efforts exhaust the available off-the-shelf technology and start to place nontraditional demands on these systems.

I've studied reflector profiles and a deeper reflector will indeed result in greater efficiency

Wilkey

[/ QUOTE ]

See the my Thor thread for PWM based regulator schematics.

The other issue you have with small reflectors, is the manufacturing tolerances have to be quite tight, which can lead to errors, there is no free lunch...

Also think about a true point source vs. reality.

I've posted quite a bit on the divergence between point source and real filaments and the resultant effects in a real reflector. The whole horizontal/vertical/small/large filament discussion has focused on the source. However, the effect of reflector tolerance and surface quality is also an easily accessible thing. Just think about all those faceted, sputtered and smooth type reflectors out there? Rings? Hot and dark spots? All reflector-based artifacts.

Manufacturing tolerances are critical, this is true. But fractional wavelength deviations are not the culprit I think. I think that the interaction of filament geometry with a real reflector's gross aspects are what govern practical performance. In other words, non-Hubble applications.

Wilkey

Ginseng~
You are absolutely right about the focal length. That was my mistake. I was staring at the Carley diagram when I made that statement and meant to say something about having the focal length as measured by Carley continue to be mearsured from the base of the reflector which for them isn't the base of the reflector surface. Anyway, yes, the focal length does decrease for a given diameter and a longer overall length.

So as far as output is concerned, do you guys like HID? I'm thinking that's going to be the best way. I mean, whether the application is defined as a 'man portable light source' or just a bright handheld flashlight, HID seems pretty sweet. What's the brightest HID that could be even considered anyway? I'm assuming that 10,000W IMAX HID isn't realistic yet, or is it?

One of the basic issues faced by HID lights, (and I WANT one) is start up.

Most people who NEED (vs. WANT) very bright lights MUST have instant on. LEOs, Firemen, Security Officers, heck, even bouncers must be able to turn the switch on and have light, preferably lots of it.

As one of my LEO friends put it, "The difference between me being shot or me doing the shooting may be 1/2 second, I don't want to wait for the light to warm up to show me who just shot me!"

HIDs fail miserably in that department, as do Sodium Lamps in all their incarnations. Ever been at a high school or college basketball or football game when someone had to have the lights out for a halftime show? Takes about 10-15 minutes for them to come back to full on.

For the foreseeable future, if you want bright AND instant on, we're stuck with Incans and LEDs. And LEDs have serious limitations as far as VERY bright is concerned.

In my view, the real issue is twofold.
1) Build a VERY bright light that runs for a reasonable time and can be recharged. While I love my MC60, I think reasonable is around 20-30 minutes, not 60. I can't remember ever having to run a light for 60 minutes straight.
2) Build it so it doesn't get too hot. All the really high output bulbs approach dangerously hot levels. My Mule can start newspapers held in front of the lens on fire in less than a minute. My 10,000 Lumen 6" spot can make it too hot to comfortably hold your hand in front of it 3 feet away!

One thing not discussed here is what happens to your night vision when you run a REALLY bright light after dark. The bright lights seriously screw that up and even though you might be able to function like that, it creates its own set of problems.

Great thread Wilkey!!

Bill

Wilkey,

as always, a great thread, and a very good topic of dicussion.

Phaserburn,

You bring up some good points, but I would follow Wilkey in separating your considerations from your own particular requirements. Considerations: runtime, size, cost, brightness, availabity. Your requirements: 60 minutes +, 3D or so or less, $150 or so, maxize given other limitations (400-500 lumens for MC60), and readily available. It almost goes without saying that my own requirements and those of others will be different. One quibble or question, however: is a 4 AHr NiMH battery stick readily available for the MC ? Can a single buyer just up and order one from Aero or no? Also, you probably need to add a heat shield to the list of components if you really are going to do 60+ minute burns, right?

Anyway, on to the more important things: given the nature of Wilkey's questions and suggestions and his tone in the first post, I would suggest that price is--in my opinion--somewhat out of place in this discussion. Wilkey is considering "concept lights" and "breaking new ground" and is suggesting that pushing the brightness envelope is no longer a fertile project, no longer a fruitful endeavor for the hot-wire community. He is thus categorically NOT considering the average CPFer and how to get the most lumens in the greatest number of hands, even though he (and I) are both concerned with this question. Who else has done more to further this objective than Wilkey? No one I can think of.

But when a hot-wire guy (or gal) muses and dreams and brain-storms, the things that attract his theoretical R & D interest are probably not the practical, but the challenging, the interesting, and the unexplored. Wilkey is saying that brighter lights are a non-starter now. Been there, done that, could do more, but it's just mechanical; it's almost formulaic.

So where are the next frontiers?

This, as I see it, is the crux of Wilkey's thread.

Certainly, one of them (as was mentioned above) has got to be versatility in a single light: multiple output levels, multiple types of beams, more useful beams, rechargeability, etc.

And certinaly, another of them has got to be greater sophistication of homemade and modified lights: voltage regulators, shock isolated bezels, custom designed bodies, high tech materials and finishes, such as type III anodizing.

And evidently, one of the most pushed envelopes lately has to be the lumens/cubic inch envelope.

For myself, I dream and muse about a home-made light which strikes that perfect balance, that balance between size, runtime, weight, brightness, form, etc., and does it all using the highest quality materials and the very best ergonomics. Variable output doesn't interest me, nor does insane brightness, nor does max lumens/in^3. What really attracts me is the possibility of creating a "perfect" light, the light that may not be the smallest or brightest or longest running, or cheapest, or most easily available, or most versatile light, but the light that strikes that perfect combinations of parameters that place it at a local maxima (to use a math term). At the moment, I consider the SureFire E2e to be such a light, but I'm still getting to know it.

Granted, this is aiming very, very high for a scmuck like myself; I'm just some bozo who fiddles with reflectors and lamps and batteries, and I simply don't have the skills or tools available to me right now to hit this mark. But who knows? Maybe someday. Just maybe. I can dream, anyway.