Patent on "warm up" for wigwag of HID
XeVision HID lighting systems for Aircraft, The SUN is our ONLY competitor.
Avitar: Glasair 1-RG was built by me.
Dan Blumel:NOTE: We don't claim "way over the top" ridiculous lumens numbers of 500,000-750,000 lumens for 1 light and 1,000,000 lumens total for the Lopresti tri tip (3) lights.. To accomplish this lumens claim would require 4200 watts per light or over 12,000 watts for 3 lights. That is about 430 amps at 28 VDC, really now, how big is your alternator? 35 to 40 watt HID produces ~80 lumens per watt. Lopresti claims would require well over 8,000 lumens per watt from their systems. That is 100X more lumens per watt than anyone in the world can produce using this same technology and exact same products. "More light than a 747 is another ridiculous claim" from them. The Lopresti systems produce about 3200 or so Lumens per light (40 watts input), the tri tips (3) would then total about 9000-10,000 lumens combined. They have multiplied reality X 100 for their marketing claims of 500,000, 750,000 and 1,000,000 lumens. Lopresti has been making these claims for 3 years (2007) and no one seems to have noticed, not sure why. LoPresti’s ‘Boom Beam’ Brightens the NightLoPresti Speed Merchants’ “Boom Beam” high-intensity discharge xenon lighting system puts out five or six times the candlepower of a conventional incandescent light. The Boom Beam 50LC, unveiled at AirVenture this year, is rated at 750,000 lumens, 50 percent brighter than the company’s standard Boom Beam, and bright enough, says LoPresti, to read a newspaper a quarter of a mile away. http://www.eaa.org/ehotline/issues/050805.html, http://www.sbwire.com/news/view/13866, Visibility means safer conditions. Dimly lit runways have always been a reoccurring aviation problem. LoPresti, a big supporter of the Cirrus community, reacted to this need by developing the HID TriTips™. The system produces 1 million lumens (in daytime lit like a 747), http://www.speedmods.com/newsletter/07/Newsletter-Dec.htm , http://www.cirruspilots.org/forums/t/116256.aspx?viewall=true At 1 point they even said 3 lights (TriTips) were 1.5 million Lumens TOTAL output. 750,000 for the pair of tips plus another 750,000 for the cowling light. Another 50% increase from the rediculous. Dan @ XeVision
35 to 40 watt HID produces ~80 lumens per watt. Lopresti claims would require well over 8,000 lumens per watt from their systems. That is 100X more lumens per watt than anyone in the world can produce using this same technology and exact same products. "More light than a 747 is another ridiculous claim" from them. The Lopresti systems produce about 3200 or so Lumens per light (40 watts input), the tri tips (3) would then total about 9000-10,000 lumens combined. They have multiplied reality X 100 for their marketing claims of 500,000, 750,000 and 1,000,000 lumens.
Lopresti has been making these claims for 3 years (2007) and no one seems to have noticed, not sure why.
LoPresti’s ‘Boom Beam’ Brightens the NightLoPresti Speed Merchants’ “Boom Beam” high-intensity discharge xenon lighting system puts out five or six times the candlepower of a conventional incandescent light. The Boom Beam 50LC, unveiled at AirVenture this year, is rated at 750,000 lumens, 50 percent brighter than the company’s standard Boom Beam, and bright enough, says LoPresti, to read a newspaper a quarter of a mile away. http://www.eaa.org/ehotline/issues/050805.html, http://www.sbwire.com/news/view/13866,
Visibility means safer conditions. Dimly lit runways have always been a reoccurring aviation problem. LoPresti, a big supporter of the Cirrus community, reacted to this need by developing the HID TriTips™. The system produces 1 million lumens (in daytime lit like a 747),
http://www.speedmods.com/newsletter/07/Newsletter-Dec.htm , http://www.cirruspilots.org/forums/t/116256.aspx?viewall=true
At 1 point they even said 3 lights (TriTips) were 1.5 million Lumens TOTAL output. 750,000 for the pair of tips plus another 750,000 for the cowling light. Another 50% increase from the rediculous.
Dan @ XeVision
Correction, it was ONLY 1.4 million Lumens claimed, here it is:
http://www.cirruspilots.org/forums/t/116960.aspx?PageIndex=2
http://www.xevision.com/pdf/Vertical_Power-XeVision_PR.pdf
This link does not function in the first post.
1.4 million Lumens output would require 600 amps of power at 28 VDC (~17,000 watts), This is obviously impossible.
This post belongs in the Marketplace Forum.
Gordon ATP/CFI SR22 G3 GTS Turbo (TAT of course) w/ DFC90 A/P
That being the case, could you place a link to it in the marketplace. It seems, I cannot create a new thread there.
If Lopresti had used "candlepower" instead of "Lumens" the copy would have been correct wouldn't it? The Q4559X aircraft landing light has a narrow spot reflector and puts out 600,000 max CP but a very limited lamp life . XeVision may / maynot have a better product but they don't have a STC for the Cirrus and market to OEM's and experimentals. Correct me if I am wrong.
John N468JP SR20 #1261
John Dolan: If Lopresti had used "candlepower" instead of "Lumens" the copy would have been correct wouldn't it? The Q4559X aircraft landing light has a narrow spot reflector and puts out 600,000 max CP but a very limited lamp life . XeVision may / maynot have a better product but they don't have a STC for the Cirrus and market to OEM's and experimentals. Correct me if I am wrong.
We tried to politely tell them that 3+ years ago but they ignored the comments, no one likes to be corrected by their competition, even privately. For 7+ years prior to the last 3 or so years, they had used CP numbers exclusively, then suddenly all the same numbers were used as Lumens values.
If they had used CP instead of Lumens as the units of measure, the current numbers are at least possible numbers and in the realm of possibility.
The entire Lopresti staff seemed to make the CP to Lumens switch at the same time, this included RJ Siegel, and 2 or 3 Lopresti brothers as well as the general staff. When they had a press release in Aero news about 3 years ago we told Aero News about the accuracy problems as well.
For 3+ years now, EVERYTHING they published from the Lopresti Senior staff members and other statements including the website had these same errors.
They (Lopresti) claim to be the "experts" in this technology because they were "first", we have been at it since 2001. How do they make such an elementary mistake which has continued for about 3 years? Don't they have any engineers on staff or consulting them? This is NOT rocket science, just VERY basic lighting and optics terminology.
Lumens and CP (candle power) are VERY much different units of measurement and mean VERY different things. This would be like saying flow rate (gpm) and pressure (psi) were equal terms and could be used interchangeably.
Here is a correct explanation: What does it mean for lights which are claimed as “2000 lumens” or “500,000 candlepower,” we need to understand what these two very different measurements are. To put it simply, lumens are a measurement of how much TOTAL light a device produces, and candlepower is a measurement of concentration of the beam, i.e. beam shape (narrow spot vs wide flood). These are obviously not the same thing. Just because a light produces more candlepower, that doesn’t mean it produces more total light. A good rule of thumb is, “Lumens are brightness, candlepower is related to beam shape. There is no way to convert lumens to Candle power or visa versa.
You are correct, we have no STC for the Cirrus line (yet), We do have an STC for The Diamond DA40 and more STC's are in the works. We are 1-2 months from PMA as well. We do have a few customers that have done a 337 for 20's and 22's. In most FSDO's a 337 is not very difficult especially when we already have a couple of 337's approved for Cirrus models in other FSDO's. The DA-40 STC document (as reference) also helps smooth the path for a 337. In many/most FSDO's getting a 337 approved is a "slam dunk".
We also have Lab Certified DO160-E test results (passing easily) for even our 50 and 75 watt HID systems. The XeVision 50 watt produces 65% more LUMENS than ANY 35 watt HID system, including ours. The 75 watt produces about 160% MORE light than any 35 watt HID. These numbers and increases are all based on Lumens NOT candlepower. The 50 watt XeVision system produces approx, as much light as a 450 watt sealed beam incandescent, our 75 watt compares well to a 600 watt aviation lamp. All of them (35w.50w,75w) require less power and generate less heat than a std. 100 watt incandescent (GE4509 or similar), most common in light aircraft. We also offer special proprietary (patent pending) D1S type bulbs for 50 and 75 watt applications.
Dan
For those of you who have purchased a PowerPulse or MaxPulse (exact same items, PowerPulse is a Lopresti private labeling of the MaxPulse product) Please see the first post in this thread for more details.
A simple work around for the 5 sec warmup, 20 sec is too short for HID, (25-30 seconds is needed), is:
Turn your lights on steady, ONLY (S+P position) for about 30 seconds, then quickly switch over to wiwag, and only use the fastest wigwag setting (A120) offered on the unit. That setting is 60 ppm for each channel = 120 ppm for both channels in combination. That is the only acceptable speed for ANY and ALL HID systems if you want your bulbs to last, it is also the best speed for the ballasts (max life).
Seems like there would be some more questions (clarifications) or comments regarding this thread.
Comments regarding accurate marketing claims or optimal HID pulsing strategies for performance and maximum life.
From what I can tell, the Lopresti organization as not even seen this yet. They only seem to monitor their sales threads.
their website now shows "5 times the candlepower" and "500,000 candlepower", so yes, I think they have seen this thread
Dan,
You never make a sale slamming your competitors. I, for one, will go out of my way to buy LoPresti stuff because they have great service, love aviation, and go out of their way to be members of the COPA community. You, however, sound like a whiny pre-schooler.
2008 SR20-G3 N495PG #1954 Avidyne
Doug Moore: Dan, You never make a sale slamming your competitors. I, for one, will go out of my way to buy LoPresti stuff because they have great service, love aviation, and go out of their way to be members of the COPA community. You, however, sound like a whiny pre-schooler.
Well, I would agree if we had not attempted 3+ years ago to get the terminology corrected (in private), to no avail. It was the EAA announcement (see link in first 2 posts) down near the bottom of the EAA announcement page in 2005 when we first noted this problem. For about 2 years we hoped it would get corrected without us saying anything to anyone. We then did say something via e-mail which we got confirmation that it was received. Still no corrections were made. After more than 4.5 years, I got sick of seeing the same ridiculous claims with never a challenge from anyone anywhere in any forum etc., that these same claims have been and were still being made.
Doug, as you know we do have an obvious vested interest in this situation. However, whatever happened to "shoot the message, not the messenger ?? The facts stand on their own, no matter who brings them to light. Please save the "strawman" arguments.
I have never believed in negative selling and that is not why I started this thread. I did it so that customers could hopefully make well informed purchasing decisions.
BTW, we also LOVE flying (aviation), I built my own Glasair 200+ Kts, we have great.............as well. We have served the Diamond community in a similar fashion for about 3 years.
ummmm...now that I checked out your web site, I've got 2 questions:
You have no Cirrus STC, correct?
Why, if not to slam a competitor, would you post this drivel on the Cirrus site, considering you have NO CIRRUS BUSINESS.
DB.
Doug Moore: ummmm...now that I checked out your web site, I've got 2 questions: You have no Cirrus STC, correct? Why, if not to slam a competitor, would you post this drivel on the Cirrus site, considering you have NO CIRRUS BUSINESS.
You have no Cirrus STC, correct? Why, if not to slam a competitor, would you post this drivel on the Cirrus site, considering you have NO CIRRUS BUSINESS.
I believe I already VERY Clearly answered your comments questioning my motives a couple of my posts back. I guess you believe that a passive approach would be better in this situation. We had to approach the Cirrus owners some how, we are not just another "me too" company. This approach to introduce our companies HID market position is not my preference, I thought long and hard about it for many months.
HID forward lighting is not part of our business it is our ONLY business. We are also developing some LED taxi and landing products as well to complement our continuously developing HID line.
First you tried the "strawman" now its an ad hominem argument calling my posts "drivel". If my posts are "drivel", then what do you call the Lopresti HID and Powerpulse marketing ??
You are correct, we have no STC for the Cirrus line (yet), We do have an STC for The Diamond DA40 and more STC's are in the works. We are 1-2 months from PMA as well. With Type Certification (std equipment) in a few brands of Factory aircraft.
We do have a few customers that have done a 337 (field approval) for SR 20's and older 22's. In most (many) FSDO's a 337 approval is not very difficult to get instead of needing an STC to legally do the install. Especially true, when we already have a couple of 337's approved for Cirrus models in other FSDO's. The DA-40 STC document (as reference) also helps smooth the path for a 337. In many/most FSDO's getting a 337 approved is a "slam dunk". About 30 Diamond DA-40's all around the USA have installed our systems legally and easily using the form 337 approach. Our kits are a little more than 1/2 the price of Lopresti.
We also have Lab Certified DO160-E testing results, including EMI and RFI which are conducted and radiated emissions. Required testing for serious contenders for doing business with larger aircraft (including Boeing) manufacturers. This would relate in part to Stormscope and Strikefinder performance when pulsing HIDs.
DO160-E Results were: (passing easily) for both our 50 and even our newer 75 watt HID systems. The XeVision 50 watt produces 65% more LUMENS than ANY 35 watt HID system, including ours. The 75 watt produces about 160% MORE light than any 35 watt HID. These numbers and increases are all based on Lumens NOT candlepower. The 50 watt XeVision system produces approx, as much light as a 450 watt sealed beam incandescent, our 75 watt compares well to a 600 watt aviation lamp. All of them (35w.50w,75w) require less power and generate less heat than a std. 100 watt incandescent (GE4509 or similar), most common in light aircraft. We also offer special proprietary (patent pending) D1S type bulbs for 50 and 75 watt applications.