X bins? where are the Y and Z bins?

I understand that X bin 5 Watts are very rares, but aren't there at least a few over achiving X bins that would be Y bins?

It looks like Lumileds is not really putting a lot of effort into the Luxeon V. The X bins showed up over 2 years ago and there has not been much progress since. It could be they are working on getting lower forward voltages on them to drop the wattage under 4 watts. The Luxeon V's really don't like heat and there is limited life compared to the Lux 1 and Lux III.
I glanced into my crystal ball and if the K2 series produces a SWAG (2.7 to 3.02 volts) Imagine 4 of them put together for a Luxeon V. The average vF is around 5.7 volts X 700 mA for 4 watts. 4 watts at 240 lumens would sure give a nice light that hopefully would last at least 10,000 hours.
One can hope...

By the moment only in my avatar... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I would venture an educated guess that all X bins we've ever seen have been grouped at the low end of the bin (~200 lu), with a few extreme outliers being in the middle of the bin. I bet there have only been a few individual samples that tested as even in the low borders of a Y-bin, and those were probably kept at lumileds for close study.

As has been said, the Lux V is a dead-end.

But a very nice dead end. And when looking at the efficiency charts idleprocess published a few weeks ago, the X-bin is still better than most of the K2 bins ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
bernie

I've already mentioned the reasons a few times as to why the L5 is an obsolete part. In a nutshell, once a single emitter equaled or bettered the L5's output there was little reason to continue development. As far as comparing X-bin efficiencies to other things, 40 or so lm/W isn't that great any more. The better LEDs from Cree and hopefully soon from Lumileds are over 60 lm/W. This means a 3W emitter can put out over 180 lumens, making the very point of using multiple emitters moot. I for one am glad. From an engineering standpoint, the L5 was never anything more than an expensive hack with a very short useful lifetime despite whatever praise it may have garnered on these forums. Time to move on to better things.

Well ... here we go again /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink2.gif
We can agree that you are right and I will still continue to like my LuxV lights ... because actually the beams produced by these flawed untis is very much to my likings /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
And ... I have yet to see a light with a LED that is clearly superior (in efficiency, brightness and tint as well as beam quality) than my X3T lights ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nana.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

bernie

Benthead - That's why I was wondering if we have Y or Z bins, because X bins showed up around 2 years ago, and I don't think the K2 was in development then. So what have they been working on all this time?

luminaria we all love Photoshop /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

evan - while I agree you're probably right about lumileds having kept the best products for themselves, I think that if the heat problem could be worked out they would no longer be a 'dead end'

kiessling - Does the K2 use the same bins as 3 and 5 watts?

jtr1962 – while you're right about multiple emitters becoming obsolete when we see single die 3 watts the pump out 180 lumens, your right. But until then we may as well hope for increased efficacy 5 watts

[ QUOTE ]
thesurefire said:
jtr1962 – while you're right about multiple emitters becoming obsolete when we see single die 3 watts the pump out 180 lumens, your right. But until then we may as well hope for increased efficacy 5 watts

[/ QUOTE ]
From a business standpoint it makes no sense to put R&D money into a part that will be obsolete as soon as the next generation of emitters is out. At best Lumileds might be able to sell a few hundred of these super L5s to some of the hard-core flashoholics around here-hardly enough to recoup their R&D costs.

[ QUOTE ]
Kiessling said:
Well ... here we go again /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink2.gif
We can agree that you are right and I will still continue to like my LuxV lights ... because actually the beams produced by these flawed untis is very much to my likings /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure that those are great light lights. All I'm saying is that using the L5 in a new product, or putting R&D money into it, makes absolutely no sense.


[ QUOTE ]

And ... I have yet to see a light with a LED that is clearly superior (in efficiency, brightness and tint as well as beam quality) than my X3T lights ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nana.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
Well, my concern with any light using the L5, regarding of how great it might be in the other departments, is that 500 hour lifetime. Now I know some people have exceeded that by a large margin, but it concerns me when the manufacturer of a part won't guarantee operation beyond 500 hours even when driven to specs. That may be adequate for someone who mostly collects lights and only fires them up occasionally, but for anyone who uses them on a daily basis 500 hours is totally inadequate. If you're happy with your L5-based lights, wonderful. That's all that really matters. As I engineer I personally wouldn't touch one with a ten-foot pole, but then that's just me.

my MR-X X3T puts out slightly more lumens than surefire M6 lola. color is angry yellowish tint. I've notice output and color of MR-X has changed since I aquired this light.

not good for hunting white walls, brightest single led light I've seen.

since M6 lola puts out aprox. 250 lumens out the front end and MR-X puts out aprox. same amount of light.

after factoring min of 35% tranmission loss, would suspect my MR-X puts out equal to Ybin.

are the k2's for sale yet ?

[ QUOTE ]
Kiessling said:
But a very nice dead end. And when looking at the efficiency charts idleprocess published a few weeks ago, the X-bin is still better than most of the K2 bins ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
bernie

[/ QUOTE ]


It would be good to adjust those figures properly, instead of blindly, fixing their output based on the thermal resistance and typical temps....

As it is, they are based on the little semiconductor die within the LED being at 25C, which just is not going to happen in a typical high end LED flashlight, under typical conditions... Leads one to some very false conclusions.

totally agree with newbie on this one. I suspect one of reasons MR-X does so well is massive amount of heatsinking available. on top of liberal application of AA grease everywhere.

wide ranging focal point, large 2in reflector with UCL helps too...

during a typical 40 minute run with MR-X. light barely gets warm even driving X3T at 1.5amps.

that's why I only stated min 35% transmission loss above. usually I factor in a much larger loss for heat raise at die.

I doubt we will ever get to see it (CPF) unless someone here has contacts at LML directly. It is probably locked in a vault for safe keeping /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
NewBie:
It would be good to adjust those figures properly, instead of blindly, fixing their output based on the thermal resistance and typical temps....

As it is, they are based on the little semiconductor die within the LED being at 25C, which just is not going to happen in a typical high end LED flashlight, under typical conditions... Leads one to some very false conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Is this a conspiracy to inspire doubts in my LuxV lights?
Hah! You will all fail. Even if truth is on your side ... I still like them, as irational as this may seem.
And yet again the challenge ... show me a single light that is more efficient, puts out more light, has a good beam and superior tint when compared to my X3T and I might convert ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nana.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink2.gif
Talk about new wonder-technology is easy ... show them, guys /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin07.gif !

cy ... your MR-X is driven at 1,5A, so I'd be careful with conclusions about a specific bin. And how do you know it has the same output as the M6 LOLA?
Although I recall ... when I still had my MR-X ... it was brighter than hell! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

bernie

bernie, like most, I don't have easy access to an integrating sphere to arrive at an exact number.

but in numerous side by side tests with my M6 lola, MR-X consistantly puts out more light.

I favor the integrating ceiling bounce test pointed at same spot. while one may not be able to pin down an exact number in these ceiling tests. it's easy to tell which light is putting out more lumens.

and yes MR-X is overdriven at 1.5amps, but after a normal 40 minute dog walk session. MR-X barely warms up. point is after that long of a burn, heat produced would have long disapated into body.

I'm making no claims to what bin my MR-X is, simply noting it's an overachieving Xbin.

I'm also in total agreement with your accessment of X3T being better than ANY three watt. do prefer X4T tint better.

primary EDC, Li14430/CR2 on a neck lanyard, but prefered backup light is a Xbin with a low setting.

I would not say that the Luxeon V is a dead end, far from it. Look at the life expectancy of the Vs that are specific colors... much higher than 500 hours. The UV LuxV is a big hit in the dental arena; it will cure dental materials in a cool running pocketable and rechargable device VS the old way. The old way was expen$ive bulbs, cooling fan and pricey filters for curing.
With the LuxeonV, this advancement is actually much cheaper than the old way. Maybe Lumileds is working on the individual emitters to handle more heat (K2) put out more lumens (K2) so 4 of the "cores" can run series-parallel in the new LuxeonV K2. Four S bin K2 emitters in parallel punch out 240 lumens and should keep itself cool enough when driven at spec with low voltage emitters.
If the Lux V can handle twice the heat with the K2 emitters, the Lux V will rule the roost yet again. For Mag mods, I prefer the larger hotspot thrown by Lux Vs VS regular luxeons. Sign me up for a YYAR K2 LuxeonV!
One last thing... if a K2 VYAL Luxeon can be hit with 1,400 mA at around 4 volts (6.4 watts) I am assuming it can do this for 10,000 hours... why would a 4 core LuxeonV running at 6 volts at 700 mA (4.2 watts) every be labled lower. It runs cooler, has a core surface area 4 times larger and uses 33% less power and heat.
I think the K2 is designed to run as LuxeonVs, the 10,000 to 50,000 hour life Y and Z bin class.
Can anyone tell me were my thought process train wrecked and why this could not be the case?
Now to dream of 250 lumen Luxeon V K2 LEDs drawing 4 watts.... variable output rechargable Inova T? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]

Sign me up for a YYAR K2 LuxeonV!


[/ QUOTE ]

YYAR! There be a bright luxeon, else I be a crusty barnicle!

sorry, I just found that funny.


If lumileds keeps the luxeon V (4-die) line alive, it would indeed be impressive with K2 dies. I would suspect thermal resistance would be in the 4-6C/W range. If it were allowed to be run at full power (1500mA/die), then you're looking at a 3A, 7.6V Luxeon V - for 23W of power dissipation.

The binned rating for such a beast would probably be in the 600lm range. But, heat would take its toll.

At 6C/W (the most likely thermal resistance), Tj would initially be 163C, for a 30% loss in output, or a realistic output of 420 lm. You'd quickly hit the 185C max Tj with only a 20C increase in heat sink temp. This is just the J-Slug resistance. With an actual installation, that would be more like 7C/W, making things much worse

So at full power, binned efficacy is 26 lm/W, and a real-world efficacy is 18 lm/W. That's no better than a high pressure xenon/halogen bulb. You'd be better off running it at half power.

At half power (1400mA), binned output would be around 400 lm. Power dissipation would be approx 1.4A * 7.1 - about 10W. Initial Tj is 85C, real output is around 350 lm. Binned efficacy: 40 lm/W, real efficacy: 35 lm/W

10W and 85C is a much more realistic target for such a design. Any more power, and you lose efficiency very rapidly, and have a hard time dissipating that much heat in a hand-held light.

A quad K2 in a K2-sized package running at full power presents a daunting thermal management problem - there's just too much heat and not enough metal to trasfer that heat away from the junction. The should really go with a larger package that offers better thermal management if they're going to get into the double-digits for power dissipation in an LED.

[ QUOTE ]
BentHeadTX said:
I would not say that the Luxeon V is a dead end, far from it. Look at the life expectancy of the Vs that are specific colors... much higher than 500 hours. The UV LuxV is a big hit in the dental arena; it will cure dental materials in a cool running pocketable and rechargable device VS the old way. The old way was expen$ive bulbs, cooling fan and pricey filters for curing.

[/ QUOTE ]
The concept of a 5W LED is not a dead end. Using multiple dies to get there is. Lumileds already has the L3 in colors with a rated drive current of 1.4A. This puts the input power in the same ballpark as the L5 using a single die. Doubtless they will do so for the white, blue, and UV eventually. The reason for using 4 dies in the first place was because it was too difficult/expensive to make a single die which could handle ~5W. This is no longer true, and putting 4 of the larger dies in a single package would make absolutely no sense at all. The emitter package simply cannot effectivly deal with 15W to 20W whether from a single die or multiple dies. Finally, my main beef with the L5 has always been the decision to put the 4 dies in a series-parallel arrangement instead of a straight series one. You can never match Vf exactly over the long haul. This undoubtably is partially responsible for the short lifetime.

I've also heard that despite whatever demand may exist in the flashoholic community for 10 or 20 watt emitters, it is unlikely we will ever see anything higher than ~10 watts. The consensus in the general lighting industry, which is the main target of all the power LED manufacturers, is that 1000 to 1500 lumens per emitter is all that is needed. If you need more light, you'll just use more emitters which also aids in distributing the light more evenly. The plan is to get there using existing packages combined with efficiency increases. For example, take the L3 package. This package can effectively deal with ~3W of waste heat. Right now 90% of the power to an LED leaves as heat. Bump the efficiency to 150 lm/W and only half the power is heat. Viola, you can now run the L3 package at a power input of 6W while still having only 3W of waste heat. 6W x 150lm/W is 900 lumens. Once efficiency reaches the 200 lm/W area, the L3 package is good for 10W, and would put out 2000 lumens at that power level. In short, yes, power levels per emitter will increase but only as allowed by efficiency increases. Nobody is going to try to make a 20W, 600 lumen emitter. That's simply too much heat to deal with. Rather, R&D will focus on bumping up the efficiency so that you can make those 600 lumens with only 5 or 6 watts. It's important to keep sight of the fact that flashlights are a niche use which will only benefit from R&D thrown at the main use-general lighting.