Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
is made of superconducting aluminum substrate material (8.0W/m•K)
Here are some pictures from the inside of the K7. Noopsyche sent me this info: aluminum substrate is made of superconducting aluminum substrate material (8.0W/m•K), while the conventional aluminum substrate is (3.0W/m•K).
Lights look pretty well made but going to need a circuitry person to give us a better idea.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Marketing crap..
They shouldn't really bother trying to "expound" on it..
http://www.aalco.co.uk/datasheets/Aalco-Metals-Ltd_Aluminium-Alloy-1050A-H14-Sheet_57.pdf.ashx
202W/ m K
Pure aluminum is 205W/ m K
somethings def not right w/ their number...
sorry, it's a disease.... ;)
It's copper below not Cooper..
![]()
http://www.ngfworld.com/en/en_fiber/en_high_thermal_conductivity.html
Even 80 would be low..must have got lost in translation...
awaiting carbon fiber heat sinks.. :)
THEN one can brag..
BTW other than that, looks pretty clean.. Would prefer not to have those big electrolytic caps though.. Another long story..
This page has a photo of the light spread and color blend when it is shined on a white wall. I would have saved a ton of money if I could have seen a photo like that before I bought my freshwater Orphek light bar.Here are some pictures from the inside of the K7. Noopsyche sent me this info: aluminum substrate is made of superconducting aluminum substrate material (8.0W/m•K), while the conventional aluminum substrate is (3.0W/m•K).
Lights look pretty well made but going to need a circuitry person to give us a better idea.
![]()
![]()
![]()
I was going to point out the caps as well. Plus, the numbers from their aluminum heatsink aren't realistic.
Btw, I put my hand on the heatsink and it's warm to the touch. If there numbers were right, it would be almost cold all the time.
Just my .02
With that level of heat the degradation of the LEDs will speed up over time. It causes me to wonder how long the light will remain effective. Perhaps someone who got the lights for testing can run month x month par numbers. Providing they have a good, reliable par meter.
And one last thing, why does it cost .02 but it's only a penny for your thoughts? This has always puzzled me! :rolleyes:
As for the difference in price. My opinion is worth twice most people's thoughts. ;Hilarious;Hilarious;Hilarious;Hilarious;Hilarious
I was going to point out the caps as well. Plus, the numbers from their aluminum heatsink aren't realistic.
Btw, I put my hand on the heatsink and it's warm to the touch. If there numbers were right, it would be almost cold all the time.
Just my .02
The heat sink is an improvement over a cpu-to-air interface because heat flows more quickly both from the cpu to the heat sink and from the heat sink to the air. conduction from the cpu to the heat sink is faster because the heat sink is a better conductor of heat than air.
I will let them answer your question cause this is not my data it is theirs.Marketing crap..
They shouldn't really bother trying to "expound" on it..
http://www.aalco.co.uk/datasheets/Aalco-Metals-Ltd_Aluminium-Alloy-1050A-H14-Sheet_57.pdf.ashx
202W/ m K
Pure aluminum is 205W/ m K
somethings def not right w/ their number...
sorry, it's a disease.... ;)
It's copper below not Cooper..
![]()
http://www.ngfworld.com/en/en_fiber/en_high_thermal_conductivity.html
Even 80 would be low..must have got lost in translation...
awaiting carbon fiber heat sinks.. :)
THEN one can brag..
BTW other than that, looks pretty clean.. Would prefer not to have those big electrolytic caps though.. Another long story..
I think that is why so many people are anxious for these results. Too many companies provide inconsistent, overinflated, and inaccurate data. Not to mention some of the overseas products have terrible "chinglish" and errors that make customers question the actual validity of any info they provide.Of course. We aren't killing the messenger at all.
We are just pointing out glaring deficiencies in the information they provided.
;)
I think that is why so many people are anxious for these results. Too many companies provide inconsistent, overinflated, and inaccurate data. Not to mention some of the overseas products have terrible "chinglish" and errors that make customers question the actual validity of any info they provide.
I so agree with this and that will be part of the test. We need to come and ask these manufacturers certain questions that are relevant to our wants and needs.While there is definitely a language barrier, there also can be direct advantage taken because of it and we need to be wary of any information given by anyone from any country.
I have personally been involved in a sale of equipment where they were deliberately deceitful (ebay believed it and sided with me) but tried to play dumb and say it was lost in translation.
Rule of thumb here is listen, nod and then check every scrap of information for validity.
Marketing crap..
They shouldn't really bother trying to "expound" on it..
http://www.aalco.co.uk/datasheets/Aalco-Metals-Ltd_Aluminium-Alloy-1050A-H14-Sheet_57.pdf.ashx
202W/ m K
Pure aluminum is 205W/ m K
somethings def not right w/ their number...
sorry, it's a disease.... ;)
It's copper below not Cooper..
![]()
http://www.ngfworld.com/en/en_fiber/en_high_thermal_conductivity.html
Even 80 would be low..must have got lost in translation...
awaiting carbon fiber heat sinks.. :)
THEN one can brag..
BTW other than that, looks pretty clean.. Would prefer not to have those big electrolytic caps though.. Another long story..
Must be a matter of translation..
aluminum substrate is made of superconducting aluminum substrate material (8.0W/m•K), while the conventional aluminum substrate is (3.0W/m•K).
https://www.ledsmagazine.com/articl...tion-of-high-power-leds-for-reliable-ssl.htmlHowever, most LED substrates have a dielectric layer between the die attach pad and the metal core. This layer has comparatively high thermal resistance — so much so that the total thermal resistance of the LED stack is overwhelmingly dominated by the thermal resistance of the dielectric layer (Table 2).