From: Victor Roberts
Organization: Roberts Research & Consulting, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U)
Subject: Re: luxeon star leds
References: <3DDD9A57.58900EFB@RobertsResearchInc.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DDDB646.96D0D9D2@RobertsResearchInc.com> <3DDE7264.CD48F4F8@RobertsResearchInc.com> <email@example.com> <3DDEB081.884EC92A@RobertsResearchInc.com> <3DE03D65.932BF9BF@RobertsResearchInc.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 22:52:27 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 14:52:27 PST
Watson 'Atto Parsec' Name wrote:
> In article <3DE03D65.932BF9BF@RobertsResearchInc.com>,
> Vic@RobertsResearchInc.com talked about...
> > Watson 'Atto Parsec' Name wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't buy this convection from the top because I'm using the Luxeon
> > > Star/O which has the whole top of the LED covered by the lens assembly.
> > You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but don't you
> > think that the lens assembly will have convective losses
> > when it gets hot? The lens assembly will, of course, get hot
> > under steady state conditions if the metal base is not
> > conected to a heat sink. Considering that the lens assembly,
> > including its cylindrical holder, has a much greater surface
> > area than the top of the "bare" Luxeon Star, the "convective
> > effect" should be more pronounced for a Luxeon with the lens
> > assembly than for one without.
> The heat from the aluminum base will conduct up thru the barel of the lens
> assy and be 'convected' away, as much if not moreso than the internal heat.
That's a good point.