hi guys… so there could be a few things going on here… the xLED might be implanted a bit deeper than usual, or some darker tissue or trapped blood might still be around the xLED which would all impact brightness. The other aspect is the thinline reader which sounds to me like it’s a low power reader as well, putting out minimal field until an actual chip is detected. The best way to go about testing if it’s the thinline would be to find different models of LF readers and compare brightness under similar ambient light conditions (if possible).
I don’t have the implant xLED yet… holding off until I can get to the bottom of this. I’ll just call the diagnostic one the dxLED for now so it doesn’t confuse people. I will try on a ProxPro tomorrow and some ProxPoint Plus readers at work. The readers I would use an xLED at most would be Multiclass SE RP40s which I presume have a lot of smart power limiting/tag detection built in. I sadly only have Thinline readers at home since they were very cheap on ebay when I got them. I’ll report back with my findings with the dxLED.
1 Like
ahh ok… so the older “xLEDs” that are not implantable, and are now renamed to X Field Detector… those LF chips were not tuned well… they are less bright than the implantable xLED-LD chips.
Oh, so that’s what the field detector chips are? Repurposed xLEDs that failed QC? Clever!
actually no… haha we just used crap glass and resin that is much cheaper 
… the X Field Detectors coming out now are just as bright as the implantable xLEDs
Makes sense. I may have to take the plunge soon. Worst case it’s only $50.
1 Like