21369 lumens.... not a new tech.

[KuroChou]

Curious. Where are you getting the number of lumens as 21369 lumens?

I did the research for an exact conversion table, based on the way lumens and candela are measured, and 1candela=12.57lux, thus a 1700candela halogen spotlight lamp produces 21000+lumens.
Source: http://www.theledlight.com/lumens.html

Okay, I know you all think I am a Doctor...which I am, but I also grew up in a family that owned lighting stores so This question is right in my sweet spot (I have worked EXTENSIVELY with Halogen and HP Sodium). "can I use a halogen bulb?" the answer would be "No way". There are many reasons, not the least of which would be that you CAN'T TOUCH THEM with your bare hands (the oil in your fingers frys them) and that they will melt polycarbonate when they have been on for longer than 60 seconds. Sorry, they are amazingly bright but they are also VERY fragile and will not work for this application. Nice try though

I work in stage theatre as a living, I'm an International Honors Thespian for my tech work alone, and I'm an avid photographic hobbyist with work in local galleries.
I'm well aware of how to properly handle halogen and soduim lamps, and also well aware of the issue of melting my blade.
LDM is absolutely correct, that these things are insanely temperamental.
If you touch them with bare hands the oils on your fingers will cause a hotspot, leading to explosion.
I know the melting point of the PolyC is way below the operating temp of the suggested lamp, and that was my primary heating issue. I know full well how hot these get, when they manage to raise the surface temperature of the metal instruments that use them to somewhere around 180 degrees in 15 min or less.
Focusing lights when they're that hot, and you're hanging off an extension ladder 30 feet in the air, isn't exactly a walk in the park.
I can scrap a ceramic lamp base out of an old source 4, or mounted spotlight, and build a custom holder for that.
I have access to some very specific materials from theatre/film/photographic supply contacts, that are specifically meant to handle this sort of thing. All sorts of high temperature insulators, flame retardants, and diffusion materials.

So, before anyone else decides to jump down my throat about something they don't think I know about... it's just a cool concept idea, that with the right amount of care and attention, just might work.
I'll certainly do a lot of research, before trial and error bench testing, and ultimately prototype construction.
I know I'm young and naive and completely out of my mind, but that's exactly why with dedication, it might work out.
Because I have the persistence, ingenuity, and lack of common sense, needed to figure out a solution.


EDIT: The purpose of the thread wasn't necessarily to inspire anyone else to follow me in my quest of insanity.
Just to notify that it exists, and I'm determined to find a way.

[TroyO]

I certainly wouldn't want to hold anyone back... LOL, I'm always doing stuff that "can't be done" just because.... well, someone said it can't be done! LOL.

My big concern is just the specs don't seem to indicate the kind of light output you are talking about. It just seems to be breaking some laws of physics to push that many photons with only 20 watts.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, just to make sure you research everything you can (Or just be willing to throw the money at it and see what you get.) I mean, really... we are talking a $2 bulb, LOL. I'd just buy the thing and hook it up... or buy a couple, that way you can do a "quick and dirty" test just by powering it up with a 12V source and see if it blows right away. If it does... but was nice and super-bright before it did, you'll know you are on to something and it only cost ya $2 to find out.

Also, I would note that pointing out obstacles that may have to be overcome is in no way saying don't try it. It's just saying.... here are some forseeable obstacles you may have to overcome. LOL.

As to why go that bright? Why not? I'd rather have a brighter soloution and turn it down than to have something I want brighter but just can't do it.

By the way, here's some Wikipedia info too...

__________________________________________________ ____

Relationship between luminous intensity and luminous flux
If a source emits a known luminous intensity Iv (in candelas) in a well-defined cone, the total luminous flux F in lumens is given by

F = Iv × 2π × (1 - cos(A/2)),
where A is the radiation angle of the lamp—the full vertex angle of the emission cone. For example, a lamp that emits 590 cd with a radiation angle of 40° emits about 223 lumens. See MR16 for emission angles of some common lamps.[12][13][14]

If the source emits light uniformly in all directions, the flux can be found by multiplying the intensity by 4π: a uniform 1 candela source emits 12.6 lumens.

[Lord Dottore Matto]

LOL, no throat jumping, just educating. Like I said, nice try. You are doing a job that I have more than 20 years experience in so I am certainly qualified to help you young-ins out. That said, I love it when people use their heads and actually propose a novel idea even when it won't work. It shows me that at least the person is thinking and not being a lazy goof. Keep us posted on how it comes out. Maybe Blue Fox could chime in here since she used to build halogen bulbs for Sylvania (I think).

BTW:

"I'll certainly do a lot of research, before trial and error bench testing, and ultimately prototype construction.
I know I'm young and naive and completely out of my mind, but that's exactly why with dedication, it might work out.
Because I have the persistence, ingenuity, and lack of common sense, needed to figure out a solution."

Have at it. that is what they said about my great great uncles...and their names were Orville and Wilbur Wright, so have at it and I wish you success.

P.S.- it was obvious that you researched it, which is why I took the time to respond (wouldn't want you to catch on fire...unless you posted it on youTube later...)

[KuroChou]

So wikipedia's source agrees with mine, that 1 candela = 12.57 lumen, and industrial lighting is rated in candela, rather than the LED lumen.

The thing about this kind of lamp, is that as far as power and temperature go, they're actually pretty sturdy.
You can underdrive them indefinitely, to tune them down, and you can overdrive them a bit, at the known cost of extra heat and reduced lifespan. This particular variety of lamp is intended for use in concentrated beam spotlights, and already has a reflector/collimator built into the housing at 10 degrees.

I was surprised to see these running around twelve volts, when I'm used to the more heavy duty stuff that runs off of mains voltage 120V @ 20A.

As for the real purpose of the intensity... this thing will be bright in daylight, and with the use of high heat filters (Gels) it will also be incredibly saturated in any spectrum of color, AND, when they're this bright.... blade evenness isn't much of a challenge anymore.

@LDM: Sorry if I got over defensive. No harm done. I appreciate your willingness to help out. I'm just a little oversensitive to people saying anything to the extent of "can't." Graduation's coming up, and I'm all but ready to kill my family.

EDIT: on a side note, I also have extensive access to a broad range of ceramic tools materials and applications. This may be the only way to insulate effectively enough from the hilt. The hard part will always be the base of the blade, though I'm thinking a gap between the Gel and the base of the blade will make all the difference in the world. Direct contact is in the hundreds of degrees, but the airspace between would be substantially lower. Film/Theatre Gels are already heat resistant, and somewhat flame retardant.

[TroyO]

Opps.. I think I see a little flaw in the math... candella is based on the entire area of a sphere (That's where your 12.57 multiplier comes from) but because of the focusing effect of the reflector you are only seeing candella as representative of some smaller PORTION of that sphere... in this case 10 degrees.

[Lord Dottore Matto]

@LDM: Sorry if I got over defensive. No harm done. I appreciate your willingness to help out. I'm just a little oversensitive to people saying anything to the extent of "can't." Graduation's coming up, and I'm all but ready to kill my family.

No worries, that is why I explained (the internetz are not very effective at demonstrating inflection and meaning after all) I also could have said "not a reasonable solution" rather than inferring that it was "impossible". Orem UT? BYU? Are we alumni? Don't stress over graduation it is the gateway to the rest of your life!

[TroyO]

Here's an example... again from Wiki (God I love that thing!)

For example, a lamp that emits 590 cd with a radiation angle of 40° emits about 223 lumens

Now, as a rough arsed ballpark.... if 590 candella is 223 lumens at 40 degrees....

At 20 degrees 590 candella would be 111.5 lumens...

at 10 degrees 590 candella would be around 56 lumens.

If yours was listed at 1700 candella you are looking at about 3x that, or 168 lumens........

[KuroChou]

LDM: I'm at the end of my Senior year at Provo High, just down the road from BYU.

TroyO, I think you have your math backwards though. I know for a fact, that my 240 lumen P4 isn't even in the same ballpark as that spotlight lamp. I's every bit as bright, but it doesn't carry with the same perceived brightness.

In your math you're thinking of uncompressed light metered from x degrees of space in the light sphere, but what you're forgetting is that the x degrees referenced on the lamp isn't just saying the effective illumination area, in this type of model, it's concentrating the entire 360 into the space of 10, making it brighter, not dimmer. It's not quite as efficient as an ERS (ellipsoidal reflector spotlight) but it's based on the same science.

Think of it in the same sense as using a magnifying glass to focus the sun. It's the same principles as physical force multiplication and PSI, just in terms of light. You're taking all the light that the sun casts on the diameter of the magnifying glass, and compressing it all into a space the size of a pin head, thus multiplying the intensity of both light and heat. The same works with a thumbtack, you may only press with 5psi, on a half inch square, meaning only 2.5psi of force on your thumb, but the sharp point at the bottom compresses the same force into a microscopic space, multiplying the effective pressure by a few thousand times.

[Lord Dottore Matto]

I know where that is (obviously) I lived in Provo for 2 years. Hope graduation goes great!

[KuroChou]

LED technology is infinitely more efficient than tungsten filament or even fluorescent, but efficient doesn't always mean more effective.

You may be able to meter the same burn intensity from both a P4, and a 60 watt incandescent, at the source, but this is because the LED is specifically designed to concentrate all of it's light into a smaller space. They may appear to burn with the same intensity, but the P4 will only light half as much space in practical use (outside of a 1sqin lightsaber). If even though they meter the same at a metered focal point, if you put an ERS reflector onto the 60W bulb, and compress the light into the same 1 sq in, it will read much higher than the LED, and from a much greater distance.

The reason we use the LED's instead of Incandescents is because of the heat and power restrictions given to the hobby. If I find workarounds for both, then the incandescent will always be superior in such a small space.... for a few more years anyway.....