Imalent        
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 103

Thread: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

  1. #1
    Moderator
    Kiessling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Germany, Old World
    Posts
    16,137

    Default The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    This thread is about data points regarding the new generation of LuxeonIII LEDs with the different placing of the LED die resulting in a different photon management.
    As I don't know anything about it, I'll re-post Don's comments of some other threads in this one place here so that we have a good starting point for further discussion.

    bernie


    Quote Originally Posted by Don
    These PD's have the "new style" Luxeon LED's and I have recently had it come to light that the "new style" does indeed have a new image location relative to the package and consequently the beam is different than that of the previous LuxIII.

    Fortunately for me and my customers, the only lights I have built with "new style" have been the HD's and now this group of PD's. The good news is that the beam is OK in terms of white wall. It is actually better if you are like me and prefer more light in the corona and more of a divergent flood beam with the spot. It is not good news if you want max lux and throw from the light!

    I saw a post a few weeks back about the revised LED with the new round heat sink and apparent "lowered" die but there was little follow up comment and it was also shown, as I recall, that the new style was working fine with existing optics and lights. I will post my preliminary observations in a new thread here in this forum later tonight if I can get to it. In the mean time, I have discovered that it would appear that the reflector's curve needs to be dropped down about .015" to .020" to return to focal allignment. This is a PITA as the reflector's geometry as well as the heads geometry is not open to such realignment without some modification! In the case of the PD, I need to shave off the rear end of the reflector as well as shave off a shoulder on the reflector that is designed to reference off a mating shoulder within the PD head.

    As is, these lights here will give you a brighter corona and larger spot but with less definition in spot and less intensity in the spot. Ironically, this is more in keeping with recent reflectors I have been designing but none the less, this comes as a rude surprise that was not bargained for!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Don again
    The flux or luminous output of these PD's will be exactly what it should be with these U bin LED's. However, as assembled, the beam from these will favor a softer blend in hot spot to brighter corona as compared to if they were assembled using what one would assume to be the "standard" Luxeon. The lux of these lights takes a hit as a result. I have tested a couple set up and one was in a very controlled test where everything tested was the same with the only exception being a modification to the same exact reflector and then a re assembly. In the case of the 20 mm reflector, you can expect about a 50% increase in lux if the reflector were put in sharper focal allignment with the LED. On the other side, consider this about a 35% reduction in lux from what it could be. I.E. 1000 lux in current flood/blended state and 1500 lux in sharper spot with reduced corona intensity. Since this batch of PD's is the only set of PD lights I have used the new style Luxeons in, I am willing to offer these lights either as is (good flood beam and better than normal for corona intensity) or I will take them apart and modify the reflector to match this new geometry.

    This is ultimately going to get pretty confusing and I know that I have no desire to spend time cutting perflectly good reflectors and especially when I prefer the beam that results with this new "de focus". I don't consider the PD as a light designed for throw and I think this new distribution of light is actually an improvement over the properly alligned reflector with previous "standard" Luxeon. I have been playing with a pair of PD's with the only difference being the reflector adjustment and the difference is visible and the foreground and mid distances are improved with the missalignment but the distance is reached much better with the adjustment made.

    This alert is only in regards to these lights here and all of the previously build PD's, inclusing those with U bin LED's were of the "standard" Luxeon and not this new joker! Those of you who have already been shipped one of these have the option of a reflector modification if you choose and any of these to be purchased come with the option. Beyond these, I have not decided what I am going to do but since the TY0J and TW0J LED's I am building with are of the "standard", the point is moot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don can't stop
    However, after looking at the lux measures of this powerful UX1J behind the 27 mm reflector, I knew something was goofy! I had noticed that the spot was rather smooth and not sharp but didn't give it any thought. Well, the LuxIII in this CPF standard is of the new packaging which has been briefly mentioned but not really explored to my knowledge; or at least really delved into here on CPF. To date, I have only used the new style LED's, to my knowledge, in my HD45 and very recently, some U bins in some PD's of color. I am now aware of the fact that these LED's do in fact have an image location different than their predecessors and focal allignment is not the same!!! I have attributed the less than stellar lux measures of the HD45 to the orange peel of the reflector when it now seems that a possibly stronger influence is the fact that the reflector is in effect forward of the focal point by probably .015" to .020" at a guess. Ironically, I have been trying to design and effect optics which cause the beem to diverge more and get more light in the corona and it seems that Lumiled's, in their infinite wisdom has implimented a push in the same direction without any alert to us lowly customers! The good news to flood lovers and white wall hunters is that at least in the case of the lights I have been making, the beam will not disappoint nor does it look bad. However, if you are in fact looking for high lux measurements and long throw, these new LED's will require modifications to optics designed for the previous packaging and/ or placement changes within their hosts! WTF!!!

    I have been sitting on this post while I did a quick build and light test. I put one of the new version (we need a friggin name for these damn things!) Luxeon's (UX1K) in a Light Engine with DB917 driver. I put the LE in an Aleph 2 head with stock reflector and no window and put it in the integrating sphere as well as took a lux measurement with it. 80 lumens and a lux of 1030. I then took this same reflector and faced .015 off the rear of the reflector and put it back with the same LE and again took flux and lux measures. 80 lumens once again but the lux jumped up to 1525. There was essentially an increase of 50% in the lux measure! There is no loss of photons but the deployment is certainly effected!

    A quick and late query to the Future Reps I have been in contact with resulted in a comment of essentially, news to them! I suspect that there is going to be mixed inventory coming down the pike in production units and some manufacturers may catch wind of something not quite right or the same from customers who may notice something "off" about the lights. In addition to the fun lottery, Lumileds it would seem has added blind siding of the customers as an additional bonus and part of the game.
    Last edited by Kiessling; 10-08-2005 at 01:02 PM.
    There is a type of perfection that transcends the quest for lumens. Buying a $250 1-cell light for "lum factor" is like buying a $250 single malt Scotch for the alcohol content.
    - paulr


    It's always darkest just before it goes pitch black.
    My shoes are too tight. But it doesn't matter, because I have forgotten how to dance.

  2. #2
    *Flashaholic* McGizmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Maui
    Posts
    17,264

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    OK, thanks Bernie! This issue goes well beyond the McGizmo forum I suspect and we need to find the previous thread where one of our members from off shore posted his observations about this as well as some photos and perhaps a link to Lumileds documentation?!?! I am supposed to get a technical response back next week from a fellow at Future. Frankly, in my limited experience with this new "joker", it seems to me that this LED is different enough in its composition and image location, that it is very disrupting and misleading for it to have been slipped in as the same part as the previous Luxeon. I could be wrong and off base here but I sure see a dang difference in the small population I have messed with!!!!

    The fact that Lumileds may now designate the image location or geometry is somewhat meaningless if they don't also provide the previous LED's image location.
    Build Prices .... some mods and builds (not 4 sale) "Nature can be cruel- but we don't have to be."~ Temple Grandin

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Kiessling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Germany, Old World
    Posts
    16,137

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    I found this picture posted by chimo in this thread:

    http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/show...ghlight=luxeon



    bernie
    There is a type of perfection that transcends the quest for lumens. Buying a $250 1-cell light for "lum factor" is like buying a $250 single malt Scotch for the alcohol content.
    - paulr


    It's always darkest just before it goes pitch black.
    My shoes are too tight. But it doesn't matter, because I have forgotten how to dance.

  4. #4

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    I KNEW something was wrong with my newest light (not one of yours Don) and now that I know what it is I can fix it. Thanks Don for finding and letting us know this.

  5. #5
    Flashaholic* Sway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,717

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    This is a most excellent thread and confirms some of my suspicions, the last Quad-Lux I made using UX1L emitters with the new round sink had more flood and less throw. This effect was noticeable using the IMS20 and the McR20 reflectorís.

    Now I can get a good nights sleep and know itís all not me, thanks!

    Later
    Kelly

  6. #6
    *Flashaholic* McGizmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Maui
    Posts
    17,264

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    Cool guys! It would be interesting and helpful to know which lights are turning up with the jokers and how they are behaving. Unfortunately the best clue as to which are the jokers is seeing their sinks and once mounted or on a star, one doesn't have a visual clue unless you can view the LED from the side. :shrug;
    Build Prices .... some mods and builds (not 4 sale) "Nature can be cruel- but we don't have to be."~ Temple Grandin

  7. #7
    *Flashaholic*
    tvodrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Hawthorne, NV
    Posts
    4,987

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    The joker also bit LITEmania on his Jil TWOH offering here. See post #35 and a few following.

    Larry
    So much for not being able to find my happy a** with both hands and a flashlight! (Do not look into Tank Searchlight with remaining eye!)

  8. #8
    *Flashaholic* McGizmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Maui
    Posts
    17,264

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    Thanks Larry!

    I expect to see smooth reflectors and optics which are designed specifically for throw and "true" image projection to be most effected by the joker and its new image location. Ironiclly, some might come to appreciate the benefits of more of a flood beam and greater distribution of light beyond the spot due to these LED's but in principle, the defocusing or movement out of focal allignment should be done intentionally and not as a result of an unannounced change in the "rules".

    I just tried a joker with unaltered McR-27L and I am realy happy with the results!
    Build Prices .... some mods and builds (not 4 sale) "Nature can be cruel- but we don't have to be."~ Temple Grandin

  9. #9
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Pleasanton (Bay Area), CA, USA
    Posts
    3,921

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    Hi Don - I feel your pain - no really. I had a batch of custom reflectors (12.5mm for my cr2 light) built specifically for the "old normal" Lux III s I had. With small optics comes tight tolerance requirements.

    I am sweating this one out.

  10. #10
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    400

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    I finally found the picture and link to the die height difference. Link HERE


  11. #11
    Moderator
    Kiessling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Germany, Old World
    Posts
    16,137

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    Interesting comment in the above-linked thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by wasBlinded
    I recently received a LuxV which has a different slug shape than an older one. I didn't try to measure die height, but I put it into a U2. This U2 had a donut hole in the beam with the original LuxV, but not with the new LuxV. That would be consistent with a change in die height and consequently the light focus.

    It does seem that some of the K2 technology is being slipstreamed into the existing Lux3 and LuxV lines.
    Warren stated that LumiLeds had made an announcement in March 2005 about it, but only for the LuxI.

    bernie
    There is a type of perfection that transcends the quest for lumens. Buying a $250 1-cell light for "lum factor" is like buying a $250 single malt Scotch for the alcohol content.
    - paulr


    It's always darkest just before it goes pitch black.
    My shoes are too tight. But it doesn't matter, because I have forgotten how to dance.

  12. #12
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,222

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    In my unscientific comparison, using the MarkIII eyeball, the new LED in the McR20 reflector results in a a hotspot that is larger and not as intense compared to the older, higher die height Luxeon.

    In the Aleph3 the new LED doesn't seem to make much of a difference in the hotspot size.

  13. #13
    Unenlightened
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Dalian, P.R.C
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    Hi Don

    Has you tried this "new style" emitter with the MCR-19 reflector? I am interest with the performance!

    thanks,

    Penny

  14. #14
    *Retired* NewBie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oregon- United States of America
    Posts
    4,946

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    So, for most folks, is this going to be just a reflector tweak?

    I did notice on the Lux I drawing, they were showing the slug sticking out the bottom at 0.25mm vs. 0.2mm of the Lux III drawing.

  15. #15
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Pleasanton (Bay Area), CA, USA
    Posts
    3,921

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    Hi Newbie - it depends what you call a "tweek". If you have to modify several hundred custom made, vacuum aluminized reflectors, with delicate interiors that are made to exactly fit, then that begins to seem like more than a tweek.\

    I usually go by the data sheets, and perhaps I am blind today, but I certainly did not see any notification of a change in focal point. (in the data sheet) I have somehow missed this entirely in their docs.

    Interestingly, if I am reading the data sheet mechancal diagram correctly, the die height is not specified.
    Last edited by HarryN; 10-10-2005 at 08:05 AM.

  16. #16
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    2,461

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    Is this only on emitters or stars as well?

    Thanks for the info.

    Curtis
    -- CUE

  17. #17
    Flashaholic* gregw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    1,511

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    From the first post, I guess that this also means that to keep the original focus with the new Luxeon III on a McR20, I would have to file off 0.015" on the bottom of the reflector.. right?

  18. #18
    *Retired* NewBie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oregon- United States of America
    Posts
    4,946

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    I just got looking at the pictures, and combined the two emitter halves into one:



    Not only is the die a different height from the slug bottom, it is also optically oriented differently within the dome "lens". It appears to no longer be oriented in the center of the half dome lens. This too could be corrected, but would need a prescription to be applied to the reflector.

    Anyone got better, and clearer, and larger more detailed high resolution photos of the two, so we could make a better comparison?

  19. #19

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues


  20. #20
    *Flashaholic* McGizmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Maui
    Posts
    17,264

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    Hi guys,

    Like Harry said, this goes a bit beyond "tweak" as a .015" reduction in the component stack is typically not within the tolerance range of the build design without some effect on assembly fit and function. The fact that the optic or reflector needs to get closer to the LED is more problematic than if it needed to be shimmed away from the optic/ reflector. In many designs, the optic/ reflector is already in contact with the LED and further, it may be seated on a fixed shoulder or mount in the head. Material may need to be removed from the optic/ reflector both on its rear face where it contacts the LED as well as a reference or mating surface corresponding to its fixturing in the head.

    It is very difficult to turn down a reflector without having the chips contact and scratch the delicate reflective surface. Even holding the reflectors for the modification process can require custom collets be made.

    Moving forward, the obvious solution is to design new optics and reflectors based on the new geometry as well as intended beam patterns. The fact that the die is now lower in the package actually allows for a slightly greater range of focal length solutions. The existing deeper reflectors are more forgiving in that they will provide reasonable beams with a greater range on the Z axis. The orange peel also allows for slop on the image focus adjustment.

    Due to tolerances which need to be allowed in the components, I have been fudging in the direction of having the image at or behind the focal point of the reflector all along. This .015" displacement goes beyond what I had in mind but is not catastrophic. It is enough to significangly effect the collimation and lux of the design though!! The smooth reflectors and optics designed with the intent of projecting a sharp and "tight" image will be most effected and the difference will be obvious to anyone with a sample of previous and the new Joker in comperable lights.

    hifipenny,
    The McR-19 flush against the Luxeon has always been a case of the image being well behind the focal point of the reflector. The LuxIII in this set up provided a good flood with a sort of starburst artifact in the center. The joker now provides a small spot of obvious brighter intensity but more in keeping with a "typical" beam in appearance. In short, the joker with the McR-19 is an improvement and actually quite effective, IMHO. For close up inspection work as well as near to mid range concentrated flood, this is a great package! From physical contact eith the target on out to meters away, the spot is pure. Many lights have a null or black + when they are too close to the target; no so with the McR-19. I think this particular combination has now become a more acceptable and viable option.

    gregw,

    Filing the rear of the McR-20 down by .015" will allow it to mate properly with the LED provided the reflector is not constrained by a reference stop or shoulder seat in the head.

    ******

    Just got a call back from a couple Future guys. They were completely unaware of this and preliminary speculation is that since Lumileds has never stated image location, the part is quite possibly still within specification. Yeah, I can understand this and I also know that the allowance for image movement has now been given a new and lower starting point and the change not only can be measured but seen as well.
    Build Prices .... some mods and builds (not 4 sale) "Nature can be cruel- but we don't have to be."~ Temple Grandin

  21. #21
    Flashaholic* Anglepoise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,554

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    Might I suggest that reflectors that have been modified or especially made to work with the 'jokers' have some sort of permanent identification mark or things will rapidly get out of hand.
    David............................................." Some Homemade Creations"

  22. #22

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    I took a black marker and wrote a "J" on the back of my reflector. Hope Don don't mind me using his "joker" ID. That way I know that the reflector has been shorten .010 and is marked "J-010"

  23. #23

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    This is pretty bad if there is a focal point difference and the part number remains the same. There isn't any real way of knowing what's in a particular light, if it's properly focused (matched optics) or not.

    As for the shoppe we have both types posted. Does this mean I should mark the description designating the ones that are Jokers and the ones that are not. Oiye!

    Wayne

  24. #24
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Pleasanton (Bay Area), CA, USA
    Posts
    3,921

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    Interestingly, the K2 calls out a 2.5mm optical center height IIRC. Is that the same as the new Lux IIIs ?

  25. #25

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    The data sheet for the Lux3 does not call out the optical distance and thus it's up for interpretation. There's a spec of 0.49mm (FLOAT) relative to the top of the black plastic which is meaningless since the black plastic has no dimensional specifications per the drawing.

    According to my source at Future they say that both lux3s are within spec since the spec (FLOAT) allows for the LED to move in the Z axis by this amount.


  26. #26
    Flashaholic* tylerdurden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Roaming Around - Southern USA
    Posts
    2,083

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    Does this issue affect Luxeon Vs as well? The last batch of V stars I got have the round slug.

  27. #27
    *Flashaholic* McGizmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Maui
    Posts
    17,264

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    Tyler,
    Good Q! To date, Future is not providing any information beyond the aforementioned lack of information and lack of any dimensional specifications.

    My personal take is that previously, Lumileds held that the die could "float" somewhere in the range of .49 mm. Now we have a new reference point( lowered top of slug) from which the die can float but without knowledge of before and after heights of slug and indication that this can indeed be considered a new "starting point" , we be in the dark. Since Mag owns the IP of designing in any adjustability of focal allignment, this is not a real viable approach.
    Build Prices .... some mods and builds (not 4 sale) "Nature can be cruel- but we don't have to be."~ Temple Grandin

  28. #28
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,222

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    I think the same consideration applies to the LuxV. I have a U2 that had a donut hole and a weak emitter. I replaced the emitter with another "old" style, still had the donut hole. Then I replaced that one with a "new" one, and the donut hole was gone - suggesting a lower die height.

  29. #29
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Pleasanton (Bay Area), CA, USA
    Posts
    3,921

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    Wayne - Actually, a number of optical systems do rely on the die to black shoulder distance (mine are an example). I knew it was not specified, but - it had been reasonably consistent in the ones I attempted to measure.

    With the light I am building, there was no way to reference the height to the slug.

    Just MHO, but if you were to track your Luxeons with a different part number reference for the "new height" vs "old height" you may find some new value in some of the old parts as people try to fit these pieces together.

  30. #30
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    2,639

    Default Re: The New Luxeon III Generation Issues

    I just got a Luxeon V emitter with the new slug. I don't have a bare Lux V with the old slug, but I do have a few bare Lux I high domes with the old slug. I might try to take some high res macro shots of those...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •