Moore's laws for lights?
#26
Senior Member
(But we're now splitting hairs here. Yes, some might describe me as a "computer nerd", also an "electronics nerd".)
I think the OP was referring to the fact that the lumens light output seems to be racing ahead much like the number of transistors in ICs (i.e. Moore's law) and much like transistor density, eventually we're going to hit some brick wall where we reach a limit and have to use parallel LEDs to gain further brightness. (Like todays CPUs: going to multiple cores)
#27
I am a caffine girl
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,815
Bikes: 2012 Stumpjumper FSR Comp...2010 Scott CR1 CF...2007 Novara FS Float2.0...2009 Specialized Hardrock Disc...2009 Schwinn Le Tour GSr
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Let's look at this another way ...
One amp at 8.4 volts is 8.4 watts. 3000 lumens/8.4 watts = 357 lumens/watt, which is significantly higher than the theoretical limit for a white LED, and significantly more efficient than any light of any sort in the real world.
Either 8.4 volts, 1 amp or 3000 lumens is a lie ... they can't all be true simultaneously.
One amp at 8.4 volts is 8.4 watts. 3000 lumens/8.4 watts = 357 lumens/watt, which is significantly higher than the theoretical limit for a white LED, and significantly more efficient than any light of any sort in the real world.
Either 8.4 volts, 1 amp or 3000 lumens is a lie ... they can't all be true simultaneously.
I am guessing each LED with be consuming about at least 3 watts of power since the forward volt is at about 3v when the emitter is driven at 1 amp. The light might be consuming at least 21 watts of power. The claim on the runtime may be accurate depending on the size of the battery use. I see the 2-3 hrs runtime claim as possibly true only if the 1 amp claim is the spec for the drive current of each emitter and not actually the draw from the power pack.
Last edited by colleen c; 03-05-15 at 08:16 PM.
#28
Senior Member
I think DX is quoting the 1 amp spec as the driver current for each LED. If that is the case then each Led is drawing 1amp at the emitter. The Cree spec for 1 amp at the LED will yield 388 lumens. The light has 7 led and thus the total lumens should be about 2716 lumens. The claim 3000 lumens is close enough for me considering how wild some other company or seller will claim exponential lumens from their light.
I am guessing each LED with be consuming about at least 3 watts of power since the forward volt is at about 3v when the emitter is driven at 1 amp. The light might be consuming at least 21 watts of power. The claim on the runtime may be accurate depending on the size of the battery use. I see the 2-3 hrs runtime claim as possibly true only if the 1 amp claim is the spec for the drive current of each emitter and not actually the draw from the power pack.
I am guessing each LED with be consuming about at least 3 watts of power since the forward volt is at about 3v when the emitter is driven at 1 amp. The light might be consuming at least 21 watts of power. The claim on the runtime may be accurate depending on the size of the battery use. I see the 2-3 hrs runtime claim as possibly true only if the 1 amp claim is the spec for the drive current of each emitter and not actually the draw from the power pack.
#29
I am a caffine girl
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,815
Bikes: 2012 Stumpjumper FSR Comp...2010 Scott CR1 CF...2007 Novara FS Float2.0...2009 Specialized Hardrock Disc...2009 Schwinn Le Tour GSr
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Sounds feasible, in which case someone who wrote their specs up forgot about Kirchoff's Current Law, there are probably in a couple of strings of LEDs that are then parallelled. Maybe 3 pairs of LEDs then one lone one on its own PSU channel?
#30
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,040
Bikes: Bacchetta Giro, Strada
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I didn't say or even imply that it did. I also invoked the largely tongue-in-cheek suggestion that number of blades in a razor blade might follow a similar progression, to further suggest that it would be absurd.
All of that was really just a joke, one that I thought was quite obvious ... but the seven emitters in this ugly beast certainly is quite an oddity.
All of that was really just a joke, one that I thought was quite obvious ... but the seven emitters in this ugly beast certainly is quite an oddity.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BadBurrito
Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling
26
07-30-16 08:21 PM
claystevens
Electronics, Lighting, & Gadgets
13
01-22-14 10:00 PM
dougmc
Electronics, Lighting, & Gadgets
6
08-05-11 06:44 PM