# Phillips Lumileds Announce 115lm/Watt LED



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

Lumileds said:


> San Jose, California - Philips Lumileds, the pioneer and the leader in high-power LED technology, announced today new performance records for high-power white LEDs. Philips Lumileds 1x1 mm2, chip based white LEDs, operating at just 350 mA, delivered 136 lumens for a light source efficiency of 115 lumens per Watt at a correlated-colour temperature (CCT) of 4685K. At 2000 mA, Philips Lumileds white LEDs delivered 502 lumens at a corresponding 61 lumens per Watt. These LEDs are the first high-power LEDs to break through the 100 lumen per Watt mark and demonstrate the real potential of solid state lighting technology.





Lumileds said:


> Philips Lumileds achieved the record results for white LEDs by combining several new and innovative technologies it has developed. The first devices using these technologies will be introduced in a new generation of products during this quarter. These new technologies will continue to proliferate in new, and existing, products throughout the next 12-18 months.
> 
> Philips Lumileds breakthroughs in epitaxy, device physics, phosphor, and packaging technologies are critical to delivering the performance required of LEDs as they continue their growth into a preferred light source.


Here we go again, I'll take four please sir!! Official press release *here*. Discuss&#8230;    :thumbsup:

Dave.


----------



## presslab (Jan 5, 2007)

The 500 lumens at 8 watts looks very promising... Now the question is can they get the heat out of it. I have three OSRAM Ostar emitters to play with, which can also put out 500 lumens; at 15 watts though. However, the thermal properties of the Ostar is considerably better than the Luxeon emitters.


----------



## achesalot (Nov 8, 2005)

I don't thing anyone really thought Lumileds would be down for the full count!
This race will be going on forever.


----------



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

A few thoughts:

- In terms of efficiency there was a lot of hype around the K2 before it's release, and while we did see an increase in light output when it was finally released, unfortunately in reality it was a hot little power sucker that didn't really live up to the hype.

- Lumileds have always shown impressive results with their phosphors in terms of efficiency, low colour shift, and even application on the die.

- While the lumen / watt numbers are incredibly impressive, I notice a rather low colour temperature verging on a "warm white" rather then a brilliant white. However colour temperature and tint are less important on the trails, you can get away with that.

- I really like the lumen / watt numbers at higher drive currents. This is where Lumileds will blow other emitters out of the market.

- What I like most though is the statement "_The first devices using these technologies will be introduced in a new generation of products during this quarter_". Now we're talking!

- It sounds like they will be integrating their new technology in to existing packages too, so hopefully we may see products that can be used as easy upgrades to existing systems, rather then having to go through the hassle of new mounting techniques, optics, reflectors and all that kind of stuff that we have to contend with when we use other current emitters. :thumbsup:

- Now we just have to play the waiting game to see what will actually happen. I have heard from a number of sources in the past the Lumileds have been working away for a while now, so hopefully we will see a quick release this time around. It's been a long while since they have released a significant product that's a "true" breakthrough.

- I want one now!!!  

Dave.


----------



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

presslab said:


> Now the question is can they get the heat out of it.


Time will tell, but lumen maintenance of Lumiled products at their rated drive currents has been excellent historically. It will be interesting to see how this new technology will be packaged. Perhaps implementation into existing products will see drive currents lowered a little, but I am sure Lumileds will have a package developed that can cope with the demands of this extra power.



Allen said:


> I don't thing anyone really thought Lumileds would be down for the full count! This race will be going on forever.


I think everyone assumed that Lumileds would be working on something while the other manufacturers had their glory for a while. It could even have been a delayed release so that they could make the most of the market with their current range before releasing a new product. Their claimed release time frame certainly looks like that to me. 

Hopefully we will see something tangible soon, I don't want to go through the waiting game we had with the K2 again&#8230;

And yeah I'd say the race will continue for a fair while yet. Increasing light output at higher drive currents is the current logical focus, as is continued developments in phosphor performance, efficiency, and application on the die. :thumbsup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 4, 2004)

OH! MY! 

I tell you what, LEDs are making their mark in a big way. 

500 lumens at 8W could make for a l-o-n-g lasting light. I do wonder how big the heat sinks are going to have to be. If they can keep them diminuative it'll be beyond awesome.


----------



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

Forgetting the total wattage of the emitter for a moment, in terms of lumen per watt and the increase in efficiency, the emitter should actually be producing less heat per watt. Obviously these emitters have the capability of running at higher wattages, so adequate thermal management will still be an issue.

At the end of the day I think manufacturers will still prefer multiple emitters from an optical point of view, and in terms of efficiency it's still an advantage to have more emitters, but driven at lower currents. As a result I don't think there's going to be a need for bigger heat sinks, and perhaps we may actually see the opposite.

But if you were to push a single emitter or pair of emitters at their limits then perhaps you would see heat sinks a little larger then normal _for a two emitter light_, or at least around the same size of current lights around the same wattage.

Minimising resistance between the die, emitter packaging, thermal interface materials and the heat sink is the current focus, and it's this focus on getting the heat away from the die (even if there's generally less heat to deal with) that's the issue, rather then the surface area / mass/ dissipative properties of the heat sink itself.

It's going to be a very exciting year for the lightning industry.


----------



## presslab (Jan 5, 2007)

The temperature junction-case of a K2 is 9 K/W, and light output is 85% at 90 C. The Cree XR-E is at 8 K/W and about 85% at 90 C, respectively. The Ostar is 5 K/W and 90% at 90 C, respectively.

If Lumileds can get the packaging down to get the heat out, they will really have something!!

The low color temperature is great, I think ~5000 K looks the best to my eyes.


----------



## chrism (Jan 27, 2004)

Low_Rider said:


> Hopefully we will see something tangible soon, I don't want to go through the waiting game we had with the K2 again&#8230;


Which is exactly the problem - at the moment this is just vaporware, and given the history I'm not about to get excited until they at least announce production products, or even until they actually appear at distributors.



> in terms of lumen per watt and the increase in efficiency, the emitter should actually be producing less heat per watt.


They might be more efficient than previous generations, but given the overall efficiency of turning electrical power into light, the vast majority is still going out in heat - I'd guess that you probably still have 80-90% of the heat output of a Lux 3, so the thermal management issues haven't changed that much. Certainly if you want to get anywhere near the figures you're seeing there, you will still need very good heatsinking (given that I'd imagine they are keeping the die to 25 degrees by supercooling the slug for those tests).


----------



## presslab (Jan 5, 2007)

chrism said:


> (given that I'd imagine they are keeping the die to 25 degrees by supercooling the slug for those tests).


I would assume these lumen spec's are 25 C die as well, as the previous products are spec'd that way. I believe they just quickly pulse the LED on and measure the light output before it has a chance to heat up.


----------



## Homebrew (Jan 2, 2004)

presslab said:


> The low color temperature is great, I think ~5000 K looks the best to my eyes.


I agree, the color sounds really good as long as the tint isn't weird. A less sterile light would work great on the trails.

I think if they can get to the point where a single LED driven with a single 18650 Li-Ion cell for two hours with around 160 lumens (around the same as two T-bin Lux III), I would be very satisfied. A self contained package that was basically a flashlight would be perfect. Anything more should go toward longer run time rather than brighter. Two hours would be a good starting point though. A medium spot on the helmet and a flood on the bars would be more than enough for riding full speed at night.


----------



## chrism (Jan 27, 2004)

presslab said:


> I would assume these lumen spec's are 25 C die as well, as the previous products are spec'd that way. I believe they just quickly pulse the LED on and measure the light output before it has a chance to heat up.


That's exactly the testing regime suggested on the thread over at CPF - I suspect whilst they can rate it at 2A it can't actually handle that much continuous current, so all the excitement over a 500lm emitter is a bit premature.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 4, 2004)

chrism said:


> That's exactly the testing regime suggested on the thread over at CPF - I suspect whilst they can rate it at 2A it can't actually handle that much continuous current, so all the excitement over a 500lm emitter is a bit premature.


That's a little disappointing, really. It's kind of like weighing a bike without pedals or a saddle and proclaiming the lightest weight. Sure, it's light, but you can't actually _ride_ it that way.


----------



## brum (Dec 19, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> That's a little disappointing, really. It's kind of like weighing a bike without pedals or a saddle and proclaiming the lightest weight. Sure, it's light, but you can't actually _ride_ it that way.


I don't agree. With the cost of LED emitters, IMHO you would always want to use multiple. This way you can mix optics, have a larger surface area that draws heat away, and multiple emitters at a lower current will be more efficient than less emitters driven harder. However, with 500lm from a single emitters I'd imagine you'd want to build a very small (single emitter), yet extremely powerfull light.
I'm sure Lumileds will come with a product that competes directly with Cree, they are just too big (the biggest). Other than a lot of statements made at CPF thay say that Lumileds are dead if they dont launch a new SLED soon, I dont think they really have to rush (well, for my own projects they do), since the main market is general lighting, where the quality of the emitted light counts. The markets that require quantity of light from as little as possible emitters is really small. Unfortunatly, we and flashlightfreaks are on the latter market. All in all: can't wait! But XR-E's will do for now...


----------



## chrism (Jan 27, 2004)

Homebrew said:


> I think if they can get to the point where a single LED driven with a single 18650 Li-Ion cell for two hours with around 160 lumens (around the same as two T-bin Lux III), I would be very satisfied.


In that case, prepare to be very satisfied right now. Take a currently available single 18650 with 2400mAh at 3.7V, you have 8.8Wh. Allowing for regulator losses that is enough to drive a currently available U-bin SSC P4 at 1A (~3.6W) for 2 hours or so. At 1A, that U-bin P4 should give out at least 200lm, so even allowing for 10% degradation due to not keeping it cool enough and a 90% efficient optic, that's still 160lm out the front. That's a real world 160lm actually hitting the stuff you want to look at and a real world 2 hour run time, and all with currently available components.


----------



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

chrism said:


> I suspect whilst they can rate it at 2A it can't actually handle that much continuous current, so all the excitement over a 500lm emitter is a bit premature.


While I'm not going to believe it until I see it, I don't think we're all that far off running higher currents like 2 amps continuous. My basic understanding from what I have read and played round with is that the current limitations in most of the latest emitters are in the bond wires (current capacity) and packaging (thermal management) rather then the physical die itself.

I definitely agree with *brum* on most of his points though, particularly from an optical point of view of having more emitters to shape the light. :thumbsup:

A bit of a news update for those who may not be lurking and reading at CPF and other resources, compoundsemiconductor.net has reported that Lumileds could release commercial products incorporating "new technology" before the end of March 2007.



compoundsemiconductor.net said:


> According to Lumileds, the first commercial products to incorporate the enhanced device designs will be released before the end of March 2007, with many others set to follow over the next 18 months.


Solid State Lighting.net has also reported that a license agreement has been organised between Phillips and OSRAM.



sslighting.net said:


> OSRAM and Philips have signed cross license agreement covering optoelectronic semiconductors. The agreement involves the mutual licensing of patents for all inorganic and organic LED. "We expect this to put us in an even better position to use LED technology to serve the demands of the market," said Dr. Rudiger Muller, President and CEO of OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH in Regensburg. The agreement relates to patents held by Philips, including the US subsidiary Lumileds, and by OSRAM including its subsidiary OSRAM Opto Semiconductors.


Cheers, Dave.


----------



## GMF (Jan 10, 2004)

Low_Rider said:


> I definitely agree with *brum* on most of his points though, particularly from an optical point of view of having more emitters to shape the light. :thumbsup:


From a purely optical point of view, i'd have to respectfully disagree. With multiple point sources, you can get weird shadowing effects (although these are greatly diminished far field like we care about). Also multiple emitters won't give you a beam pattern a well designed single optic could (at least in the range of usable bike light). Multiple emitters translates into increased cost, weight, etc.

Admittedly, if you are talking DIY, and you are stuck with off the shelf optics, I definitely agree with you. If you have the luxury of designing your own optic, i'd rather have one super bright LED and one optic. Again, purely optically - the thermal efficiency points are all completely valid and essential to take into consideration.

-Damon


----------



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

I completely agree Damon, I should have distinguished between commercial and home made… Can you tell where my mind is at?


----------



## achesalot (Nov 8, 2005)

The idea of having a single 500 lumen LED running at 2A is pretty scary!  I think that sort of thing is a ways off though. But the idea of a 2x 500lu LED light on my head is sort of exciting. But honestly, it's going to be hard to get real exicted until I have the little devils in my hands... I really prefer a max of about 12 W flowing out my battery pack whichever way you wanna slice the pie. So it could be one 8W scorcher, or two "underdriven" at 6W each giving me around 700-800 lumen... .. Allen... Allen.. wake-up, it's only a dream  

Although one light, one optic is probably ideal, I've never had any difficulty getting what appears to be a single beam from a double or Triple LED design. I suppose if you went with some really tight beam optics or deep reflectors you might notice the separate emitters, but in practice, it's not that big of a deal. You really don't want those super-narrow, flashlight-lover kind of beams in a bike light IMHO.


----------



## GMF (Jan 10, 2004)

achesalot said:


> Although one light, one optic is probably ideal, I've never had any difficulty getting what appears to be a single beam from a double or Triple LED design. I suppose if you went with some really tight beam optics or deep reflectors you might notice the separate emitters, but in practice, it's not that big of a deal. You really don't want those super-narrow, flashlight-lover kind of beams in a bike light IMHO.


I totally agree with you. In practice, it is not a big deal for bike lights. My experience comes from designing colour changing LED products with reds, greens, and blues. Then, the colour mixing and strange shadowing is a huge problem. 
I have, however, played with siamese optics (two LEDs in one optic to reduce size), and then you get weird an undesirable beam patterns. Basically, if you want a really bright LED light, you start getting pretty big because you are stacking up a bunch of optics. In my opinion, HIDs are on the big side as it is, so that is a disadvantage to LEDs

Back on topic, though, I'm not holding my breath for the next generation of lumileds emitters...


----------



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

LED's Magazine dot com said:


> *New Lumileds power LED is a small secret*
> 
> 11 Feb 2007
> 
> ...


Yes it's still just talk, but at least they haven't gone silent. :thumbsup:

With all of this talk about small dice I wonder if we may see the reappearance of a multiple die emitter like the old Luxeon V, but with far superior efficiency and light output, and maybe implemented with a little more thought this time&#8230;

It's impossible to make comment without seeing products or data, but it would be nice to think that with a new die and their proven experience with superior phosphors we might see some killer emitters if they spend some time on packaging. 

That's all folks!


----------



## Y-Wrench (Jan 9, 2007)

I'll hold my breath till march 1st:thumbsup: 
It does sound like everyones hope for a luxeon compatible form factor may not happen.


----------



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

Y-Wrench said:


> It does sound like everyone's hope for a Luxeon compatible form factor may not happen.


It is doubtful but you would never know, Lumileds themselves have hinted that their new technology may be integrated into their existing product line in the long term:



Lumileds said:


> The first devices using these technologies will be introduced in a new generation of products during this quarter. These new technologies will continue to proliferate in new, and existing, products throughout the next 12-18 months.


Again it's only guess work, but you may eventually find the new die being incorporated into the old Luxeon packaging, but it would be likely that their specification would be quite different to their "new devices" that they will release in the future due to expected thermal and physical issues.

You have to realise though that the only people hoping for compatible packaging are hobbyists and perhaps small businesses with very low product volume, and these small time customers will never be recognised by any large scale emitter manufacturer.

Emitter manufacturers only listen to manufacturers who order huge volumes of emitters, and these kinds of manufacturers will never need to consider retrofitting emitters in with existing products.

Dave.


----------



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

Check *this out* guys!! 



Lumileds February 13 said:


> Philips Lumileds today announced it has fundamentally solved the problem of "droop", a phenomenon common to *********** LEDs in which efficacy (lumens per watt) decreases as current increases. The breakthrough, by the company's engineers and scientists, enables efficacy to continue to increase even as drive current increases.
> 
> The new technology will be implemented in 2007 in the company's LUXEON® LEDs which already deliver leading light output at drive currents of 1000mA and higher. Sampling of products is expected to begin in the next 90 days with full production in Q3 of 2007&#8230;
> 
> &#8230;Incorporating this new epitaxial technology will allow Philips Lumileds to deliver the industry's first high-power LEDs that deliver 70 or more lumens per watt at drive currents of 1000mA and higher.


This is exactly what I was hoping may happen in the future, I didn't expect it quite so soon though! This is one of the areas of white LED development that I thought would take a whole lot longer to see any real gains&#8230;

There are a few numbers in the press release, but nothing for us to get too excited about just quite yet though. Hopefully we might see some solid data soon!

How things can change&#8230; it looks like the old Luxeon package may see a bit of a boost sooner then I thought!  :thumbsup:

Dave.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 4, 2004)

Low_Rider said:


> How things can change&#8230; it looks like the old Luxeon package may see a bit of a boost sooner then I thought!  :thumbsup:


This should make it easier for manufacturers to implement the new technology into existing products... if I read that right.


----------



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

Yeah it will (should) be great for smaller manufacturers who don't have the production volume to justify redesigning products and retooling for production.

You'll also see a whole heap of disgruntled "light heads" who have gone out and modified their lights for Cree and Seoul Semiconductor devices! 

Some of you guys might be wondering why I've been rambling about manufacturers and production volume and all of that kind of stuff. To put things in perspective&#8230;



Lumileds said:


> Philips employs approximately 121,700 employees in more than 60 countries worldwide. With sales of EUR 27 billion in 2006, the company is a market leader in medical diagnostic imaging and patient monitoring systems, energy efficient lighting solutions, personal care and home appliances, as well as consumer electronics.


----------



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

Apparently industry representatives do have some new Lumileds emitters in their hands being tested. There are no exact details yet as to what the emitters actually are, but I'm sure we will find out soon enough. Apart from being "bright", at this stage it sounds like details will not be released until the product is about ready to ship. It definitely appears as though they are desperately trying to avoid the K2 disaster this time around by not making any claims before they actually have a physical product.

I have no doubt about their testing methods to get the numbers as mentioned earlier in this thread, but I've been having a think about the whole 2A drive current discussion, and I think with careful physical / electrical die layout and packaging it's definitely possible to achieve 2A as a continuous drive current. Lumen maintenance will be an interesting point though.

I'm also really interested to see if they make any advancement in phosphors and efficiency of creating and manipulating white light outside of the die itself. There is a lot of research suggesting a number of different approaches, although none have been implemented in a real world product as of yet.

As a related side note to that point, Lumileds have just acquired the rest of *TIR Systems Ltd* at a cost of approximately C$75 million. As well as product development, TIR have also done a lot of research and have a very sizeable white light IP portfolio. Judging by their technical releases alone they are definitely playing with some cool stuff. It will be very interesting to watch Lumileds over the coming years in terms of both products and research, and future investments. :thumbsup:

Dave.


----------



## GMF (Jan 10, 2004)

Low_Rider said:


> As a related side note to that point, Lumileds have just acquired the rest of *TIR Systems Ltd* at a cost of approximately C$75 million. As well as product development, TIR have also done a lot of research and have a very sizeable white light IP portfolio. Judging by their technical releases alone they are definitely playing with some cool stuff. It will be very interesting to watch Lumileds over the coming years in terms of both products and research, and future investments. :thumbsup:
> 
> Dave.


That's where i used to work. Interesting place, and they did a whole bunch of hard-core R&D behind, literally, a locked door. Even the product designers (like me) weren't allowed to know what they were working on. The lexel technology is pretty cool... it is really integrating the package (everything needed to make light from an LED) into a seamless unit. Way too much for bike lights, and i doubt there will be much, if any trickle down into our sport, but cool tech none the less. Back on topic, though, there are lots of cyclists in the engineering and R&D groups there :thumbsup:


----------



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

Very cool, thanks for the insight! 

It’s been really interesting reading through their released technical documents, I can only imagine what they’re playing with at the moment!


----------



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

So the Lumileds website is suddenly “not available”, a couple of emitter spy shots are kicking around, a hint of leaked data here and there, I think I smell a release very soon... 

If all the rumours are on the right track, then perhaps this imminent first emitter release may not be of immediate great use for us, but I suspect it will still be a very interesting one. 

Dave.


----------



## GMF (Jan 10, 2004)

Low_Rider said:


> So the Lumileds website is suddenly "not available", a couple of emitter spy shots are kicking around, a hint of leaked data here and there, I think I smell a release very soon...


Now you aren't talking about the Luxeon Rebel, are you? If so, that is not some great high-power LED release. It will be in the ballpark of the current standard Cree and SSC offerings (in the Rebel's highest bins), but the main thing it has going for it is size, and supposedly cost. Size is really quite small (about 1/4 the footprint of the Cree), but i don't know anything about the cost, yet.

I'm also concerned about optics, and while the rebel has a fairly standard lambertian distribution (the data sheet is similar to the Luxeon3), the source size is a lot smaller, and i don't know how that effects optics compatibility.

Of course, you may be talking about something else entirely...


----------



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

I don’t have the datasheet yet, but I do have some data that’s pretty comprehensive. 

As I mentioned previously, I understand the Rebel will not be of any great use for us, but hopefully it will give us an insight into what technology they have been developing, and will no doubt use to rejuvenate their existing line (Lumileds mentioned doing so in previous press releases).

As you know Lumileds make their money from big business with huge volumes, the development of optics for these new emitters will generally not be a big issue.


----------



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

So here we are folks, the new Rebel. Not to be confused with the 500lm 2A beast mentioned in the past, which apparently will still be released at a later date. 

You may see it in the long term, but for the time being I can't imagine these being used in bike lights. I assume future emitters may be released with a bigger footprint. What's important right now though is the technology, and there's some cool stuff going on with the new Rebel!

I have got hold of a data sheet, and there are a few things I've quickly picked up on:

These things are tiny, and make the Cree 7090 package look like a monster! Think along the lines of a 3mm by 4.5mm package!

The dome appears to be around 2.5mm in diameter.

It's quite similar to the Cree 7090 package with an electrically isolated thermal pad, and electrical connections on the bottom of the substrate too. Time to refine your home made SMD reflow rigs!

This is a big one - no bond wires! It appears that electrical connections to the die are underneath the die itself. So no more "fuse" action like the old Luxeon III emitters when you pushed them hard. This move alone will help things considerably in terms of higher drive currents with future emitters. It should also prevent the artefacts that were sometimes apparent with various emitters (not noticeable with Lumileds Luxeons range, but the Seoul P4 does this) at extremes of focus.

External ESD diode. With most emitters these are made flat and sit underneath the die itself. I assume mounting it like shown will improve thermal performance and therefore phosphor stability.

We have colours!

We also have three distinct white "colour" bins, cool (4500K min, 6500K typical, 10,000K maximum), neutral (3500K, 4100K, 4500K) and warm (2670K, 3100K, 3500K). There are over 19 colour bins within the cool white bin. The datasheet gives the impression that they're in real control of tint, or at least they have plenty of bins to grade them with anyway!

Lumen maintenance is looking good too, with 70% at 50,000 hours, junction temperature maintained at or below 110 degrees Celsius, and a 350mA drive current.

Efficiency at higher drive currents, it's looking a lot better!

As far as light output, some of the normal bins will be hard pressed to match the Cree XR-E and Seoul Semiconductor P4. The higher bins look as though they will be very competitive with the Cree P3, and P4 bins. The crazy bins though could be real little monsters and may be real lumen queens. The availability of these higher luminous flux bins in white will be another thing&#8230;

There is a large discussion at the Candle Power forums with a link to a datasheet and I'm sure it will become a more detailed discussion for those who are interested. :thumbsup:

I'm sure we'll be hearing more from Lumileds soon. 

Dave.


----------



## Low_Rider (Jan 15, 2004)

A bit of basic data, Lumileds always do a reasonable job but the Rebel datasheet is quite comprehensive. For now though here are a couple of the old regulars:

*Forward Current vs. Flux:*










*Forward Current vs. Forward Voltage:*


----------

