Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserman532
Dave gave chad the CAD file, I don't think he cares about copies. Nevermind, I should have read your whole post... I think he wanted to get around $30 + $5 shipping for them if I remember correctly when testing his paypal link... http://sites.google.com/site/laserthings/ I found the page thanks to browser history. I am still waiting to need to combine lasers, damn hole in my pocket must be where all my money went!
-Adam
My comment was intended in a light hearted, tongue-in-cheek kind of way, that's what the ":p:D" meant …but never mind…Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserman532
Your point is valid and I'm not arguing facts. I am saying that with care the epoxy method can be employed and very minimal losses in good quality PB cubes can be achieved. I have done it several times and it’s not difficult. I guess I could make one that doesn’t work so well, but that would be rather silly :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Laserman532
Obviously not being able to rotate the diode could affect PB cube transmission/reflection if your combining rig is all over the place and the diode is in drunk, or you can’t sleep until you know you have extracted every single mW from your setup, and I’m not saying this is a ground breaking new method and the only way diodes should ever be mounted, but I did find it offered some advantages over clamping Axiz housings when engineering diode mounting blocks for larger multiple diode setups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserman532
It does, and thanks!
ditto :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserman532
Quote:
Originally Posted by p1t8ull
I'm curious as to what the advantages are? I would think that mounting the Aixiz modules in the block so that they can be rotated for optimum PBS performance, and then isolating the block using a mica sheet or similar non-conductive heat transmitting membrane would be the best solution..
^ hey, when you're right, you're right :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ElektroFreak
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElektroFreak
you both clearly dont like what simon has invented and thats fine, each to their own.Quote:
^ hey, when you're right, you're right :)
i look forward to see how you both mount aixiz housing which is far superior to simons way.
What I don't understand is that the Aixiz modules aren't exactly the most precise piece of machining in the world, I have seen a few that have lenses wayyyy of centre! How do you compensate if the beams come out at different angles?
andy, "like" really has nothing to do with my impression of the "invention" and I think simon did a great job of defending himself and his position.Quote:
Originally Posted by andy_con
my points were valid and I can assure that there is no collusion between elektrofreak and myself.
I have already designed a holder which meets the criteria of the variables required for optimum performance including heat sinking (image attached)
Isolation and heat sinking in my design is achieved by using thermal pads normally used to heat sink transistors.
My combining technique allows for the variables required for optimum performance. I am unhappy with the heat sinking capabilities so I am re designing it. My next rev to be released in a week or s0(evaluation prototypes only)
the important thing in this discussion is that Simon will be happy with his "invention". So far he sees no problem with the way he is doing it.
As a public forum, i reserve my right to input my thoughts as i feel necessary. If it works for him...GREAT...I merely pointed out a few "flaws" i felt might arise (he was already aware of these issues and felt it was not a problem for him)
I don't have a beef with it, I'm merely pointing out things that I find to be limiting about the design.. only meant as constructive criticism and I don't believe that I posted any hostile content. You remember post 40 in this thread: http://photonlexicon.com/forums/show...?t=8479&page=3
That setup is mounted and fully isolated and allows for precise adjustment for maximum output..
Errr.. you 'copied' a design, I see nothing new there
Did you seek out and drop the original inventor a few $'s I wonder..? ;)
If we're pointing out "flaws" in a disign, one drwawback of yours IMHO is size.. I could get a 2 diode/PB cube (or knifing mirror) assy on the lid of that holder!
Epoxy - 1
Clam-clamp - 0
:D
simon took the words right out my of mouth, thats massize!
also what are these thermal pads you talk of, do you have any pics of your design with the lid off?
HI guys just to set the record straight.
NO, I did not invent the little flexure mount. I don't know who did. I tried to find out because I wanted some, and was unable to find any to purchase.
Dave beat me to the punch by a couple of weeks. His are a little smaller and made from brass. Dave did offer to send me his files but I just sat down and designed my own in sw. This actually works better because I did a little fine tuning after the initial prototypes, But It was nice of him to offer!
And I don't think Dave invented them either. I have a feeling he ran into the same problem that I did, He wanted some and couldn't find any so he made his own.
Dr.Lava's current red modules are actually basically my design. In fact I made his first batch. He then tweaked the design, improved on it and had someone else make his current run. I don't care in the least. If I have something top secret It won't get posted here. I am glad he improved on it.
Back to the mounts, As to who actually invented them I still don't know. Flexure mounts of different kinds have been around forever so this exact implementation might be novel but flexure x / y adjustment is not.
I put 45 degree chamfers does that mean it is a newer novel-er design???
Like I said I needed some, I have the ability to make some, so I made some extra in case someone else wants some. I sure as hell am not going to become rich from them. If I can re-coop the materials and some of the time I put into them great, Maybe I can throw some of the money back at the $110,000.00 machine I made them on.
This board has a very strong DIY standing. We have software people, hardware people, electronics people, experienced laser people, and noobs and everything in between. Everyone has their own opinion of how things should be done and as long as we are all having fun and learning 'the right way' doesn't matter.
Just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions...*DZ
chad
^^^^^^ Nicely put ^^^^^^
I still say it would be simpler and more practical to just stick the aixiz in a block with a set screw and isolate the block with heat-conductive pads, but you're absolutely right, that is only an opinion.
Another option is diamond heat-sync compound which is electrically non-conductive. I think a flat surface would be best for its use, but it may work around an aixiz casing. The one thing I was worried about was it rubbing thin etc just a though. http://www.heatsinkfactory.com/ic-di...m-p-16605.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by ElektroFreak
I might pick up a tube sometime for testing a red, heck it's thermal properties alone make it appealing without noting the electrically non-conductive properties. Maybe not the best option but another on the table.
-Adam
you mean this type of heat-conductive pad?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElektroFreak
http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...&highlight=tec
epoxy -
size 1
heat conductive 1
I don't think I'd use something that didn't work well in your own past experience, no.. I think a thin sheet of mica would be the ideal medium, and there are other types of thermal tape/grease.. of course, the quality of the surfaces where they meet should be very high.
Given the scale you're working at, even the little piece of mica that comes with transistor isolation kits should work great..
Look, it's your own design, you can do with it what you want.. I just think that an inability to optimize output is a severe limitation. As was stated before, it takes a VERY tiny off-angle in polarization to lose some pretty significant power through a PBS. When dealing with such precision, being adjustable is a must... IMO..
epoxy -
size 1
heat conductive 1
can be aligned/optimized - 0
but the bottom line remains: it's your design. I'm only stating how I feel about it.
Like the chamfers, nice touch. I have seen it done but not on both sides.. makes yours a very universal mountQuote:
Originally Posted by chad
Amen :)Quote:
Originally Posted by chad
The great thing about forums is ideas can be thrown around, criticised and often improved by styeps 1 and 2 - a good thing *DZ
lol im only messing that stuff i had was crap but u get my pointQuote:
I don't think I'd use something that didn't work well in your own past experience, no.. I think a sheet of mica would be the ideal medium, and there are other types of thermal tape/grease..
Given the scale you're working at, even the little piece of mica that comes with transistor isolation kits should work great..
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElektroFreak
Like this? I used one of Laserman532 mounts, drilled another hole for the axiz and set screw. Works pretty good for me.
nice mophead, that is the first time I saw that. good job. That was a very creative modification of my hunk of aluminum. my next series will be an improvement. too much stuff...too little time.Quote:
Originally Posted by mophead
no pissing match or scoreboard is necessary. The ability to rotate diodes, no matter how you mount them is a desirable feature of ANY design.
I believe you can rotate the diode inside of a meredith module since it's not press fitted (someone correct me if I'm wrong..). In which case you could use your epoxy method and still have the benefit of being adjustable. They do cost more than an aixiz module, though..
So long as it's only the barrel of the Aixiz module that is epoxied; you can rotate the diode holder on the screw threads.
^You mean meredith module? The aixiz module holds the diode with a press fit..
I meant that if the only part that was epoxied was the rear barrel component (which could be cut down); the diode holder screws in to that part. If you applied thermal paste to the threads; you would still be able to rotate the actual diode holder. Obviously this wouldn't work if only the actual diode holder end piece was used. The diode sits in line with the threaded section so heat transfer shouldn't be an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElektroFreak
http://www.microlaserlabs.com/images...e%20Single.JPG
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
VERY NICE PICTURE!!!:D
if the diode part is not threaded tight to the barrel you will get another level of "floppyness" as well less thermal transfer loss defeating the reasons why you epoxied the thing in the first place. Yes you would be able to rotate the diode mount, however your "pointing" and "pointing holding stability" would be completely lost making beam combining in a PBS a lost cause...but of course that is only an opinion. :)
True but, the threads on them barrels are a gozillion percent better than the crap they cut on the lens end :rolleyes: You could use more epoxy on the threads, tweak the rotation, stir, add seasoning and leave to set.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserman532
Or just use a better mounting system in the first place (just trying to think of positives here :))
Very nice picture BTW ;)
I just thought I would toss this one in there for now.
Dis-claimer - banged together in one day.
One of the aixiz module holders is the clamshell type the other is a set screw type.
ALL of my new beam combiners will be the clamshell type. The diode (aixiz diode holder) is isolated from the mount by the thin transistor Sil-Pad material that also serves as a heat transfer and electrical isolation.
The clamshell design allows for you to install diode in aixiz mount and install aixiz in clamshell. you are able to rotate the module in the mount for polarization.
In this design the beam shoots trought the MM-1 (PBS cube not shown but it fits in there)
2.5" high 2.25"wide 1.75" thick room on the back for mounting a 2" x 2" TEC if you should so desire.
This mount offers the full freedom of movements required for optimal performance.
EDIT- That is a quarter not a half dollar :)
that's a nice bit of work you've done. i'm impressed. i have one of your clam shell mounts and it's excellent.
are you confident this provides enough heat sinking for the diodes? personally, i'd like to see more of the aixiz modules encased by the clam shell, but i've never done any temperature measurements on the diode running in your mount, and it may be just fine.
have you thought about making a place to screw mount the diode driver board (assuming a flexmod or something with similar geometry)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserman532
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamidog
yes this size can only hold one flexmod, space for 2 x 2" TEC on back shouldnt need more than that. Using the entire aixiz module is no longer being done due to everyone using lasorb...it dosnt fit in the module.
I can make i bit biggger for two flexmods, this is very small, it could be made bigger and still be small :)
Showing flexmod mounting area. I could make it about .375" wider and add another flexmod for driving each diode separately.
Showing back of device allowing for a clear area of 2 x 2 " of TEC, you will never need more than that.
If you have my big clamshell table mount you will never get too hot, at least no one has told me of any problems.
that's a good point on the lasorb vs. aixiz module. i had to hang mine lasorbs outside the modwerx heatsinks i'm using so they're a little farther from the diode than recommended (maybe an inch and a half from the diode), but i assumed that's still better than no lasorb.
i think a single flexmod would be fine. as long as the combined draw doesn't exceed the max output of the driver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserman532
I think the current thought is...if it is cheaper to replace the driver than the diode (more exotic expensive diodes) provide a separate driver for each diode. If you are running two blue rays or two cheaper red diodes...drive them both with one driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by swamidog
I made the clamshell mount the way I did so that the lasorbs can be right at the back of the diode which is the manufacturers suggested operational method.
very nice, the only thing i will say is for a dual diode setup its still a little on the large side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserman532
I would be interested in seeing a smaller setup for combining two LD's using commercially available assemblies (the majority of the builds on PL) aixiz modules, pbs cubes and mm-1's. I don't see how to get them much smaller.
One quickly runs into the mechanical constraints of actually holding the devices in question as well as performing thermal and isolation requirements less on the ability to adjust all of the variables for optimum performance.
I do not dis-agree that one can build smaller combiners commercially (ie chinese systems) in a labitory environment with specialized equipment to hold the various devices in place while curing the glues.
Please post some pictures of smaller devices, may be I have missed them.
with the way we build our setups we can easily do smaller
http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...ht=quad&page=4
although im yet to build a quad i have done some measuring and i reacon i could get a quad setup on 60x60.
my duals are half the size of yours duals so building a quad shouldnt be an issue
I have seen SBk' quad but i havent seen yours. As far as your contribution to the "we" in your statement, I am not sure how you fit into that picture, unless you are using "we" as in "us over here on the other side of the pond".Quote:
Originally Posted by andy_con
I did not see any pictures of your duals. Yes if one makes smaller mechanics it naturally goes that one can build smaller devices that was never the point. The point was adjust ability.
if you use an aixiz module you can only make a mount so small that will hold them (whether it is one or two, whether it is clamp or epoxy). If one makes his own adjustable mount (as opposed to a mm-1 for example) the device can shrink. Stability, adjust ability and pointing accuracy would still need to be evaluated.
The size of your PBS and Routing mirrors are the only variable left to size. If your beam overfills the PBS (as in the sleds) then your beam characteristics fail.
Why are you being so defensive when I made a valid comment on a device which isnt even yours. You asked me to show you one...so I did.
Please post a pic of your dual so I might get a comparason of size instead of reterioc.
im not getting defensive at all, i said yours was a nice build. i was merely pointing out that you dont like the way we (me, simon and dave) do it and i dont like the way you do it. you do indeed have a valid point but i personally dont find it an issue.
i also wasnt talking about sbk build, i was talking about daves post, who has also adopted simons method.
as ive said ive not built a quad yet, only cos i dont have a need for one. but i will be building one shortly.
as for the mirror mounts, subject to your build ability and quality you dont need mega adjustable mounts. just some fine adjustments.
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x...2112009949.jpg
a friend on laserfreak has built a magnificent dual, smaller than a packet of cigarettes
you can see it in this thread, with a 50mW laserworld green for size comparison: http://www.laserfreak.net/forum/view...2355&start=675
he also made his own scanners and scanner amps, 20Kpps, and he is designing really small scanners now which should surpass the first ones
btw, that's for an example of what is done on laserfreak, I'm not trying to say it is superior ;)
I plan on buying a dual kit from you Pat, but would you happen to have some mounts suitable for the o-like diode mounts? I'd also be interested in mounting two flexmods, as the diodes are opnext 150mW 642nm ones and I don't want a chain reaction ^^
that appears to be about 2.5" x 1.5" and a 10mm cube . i am assuming.Quote:
Originally Posted by andy_con
have you found "your adjustable mirror mounts" pointing accuracy and stability acceptable? Size is a mute point if it dosnt stay in alignment.
I noticed also that SBK after adjusting the device, glued all of the points. Not being negative here but it sort of defeats the purpose of making it adjustable. Did he discover a drifting problem in "his adjustable mounts" and solve it by gluing the parts? (honest question)
I await Daves completion which seems to be a great combination of all worlds (with exception of the epoxy IMHO) "his brass mounts" offer many advantages (MTBF of brass & flexibility) over the alluminum "flex mounts".
Instead of taking it so personally of "you" dont like "ours" or "we" dont like "yours". My origional post criticized the method not the builder.
The fact is that the "epoxy method" removes one "degree of freedom" (engineering term) for device optimazation. The "clamp method" retreives it. The "set screw method" solves rotational ability but sacrafices thermal and Isolational capabilities.
At this point, the horse have been severly beaten to death and very dead.
very nice looking lasers, probably the same size as my one pictured above
I would like to see a o-like diode mount, but my guess is that the "clamp method" will suffice. I can build you anything you would like (budget considerations must apply) :DQuote:
Originally Posted by shrad
yes 10mm cube and mirror from the red sled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserman532
thats a test setup at the moment, and ive only done a small amount of testing. having said that ive not come across a problem yet with heat, but once i get it in a full projector and running for longer i may encounter a problem.
the baseplate gets a little warm but not hot, im running the diodes at 250mw, not 300mw. when running them at 300mw you need a tec as they generate alot of heat.
those mounts i made ive also used on a dual 405 setup and the 405 diodes do not generate a single bit of heat. so wont be any problems there at all, but as we know the reds do kick out some heat.
i dont know why he glued them?
I think the concern about isolation could potentially be negated by using one of the "high-side" drivers (see post 5 for preliminary schematic) currently under development here.. Once one of them has been finalized it should make the isolation thing moot if I understand them correctly.
umm i would still like to insulate diodes, static from fingers could still pop a diodes. when insulated in a block like mine or the clamp way you can touch as much as you want without damaging them.
I was more concerned about mechanical stability and pointing accuracy far field no so much thermally induced anomalies which could also introduce mechanical stability and pointing accuracy far field. (TEC's also introduce thermally induced anomalies of adjustable mechanical devices ;))
If you have noticed no problems stick with your mount design. I use the MM-1 style because they are proven and have the mass and stability performance while only sacrificing a small bit of additional size. Agree 1" square is bigger than 10mm. But technically your mount is 20 mm x 10 mm which is about half the size of the mm-1. Performance is the key, its not the size...it is how you use it. (or in this case...how it works:))
You've always got the lasorb for that, although whatever brings you the most peace of mind is what is best for you.Quote:
umm i would still like to insulate diodes, static from fingers could still pop a diodes. when insulated in a block like mine or the clamp way you can touch as much as you want without damaging them.
lasorb all but eliminates this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by andy_con
well ill find out shortly i hope when i finally get my tiny rgv up and running.
and your bang on its the not size, its how well it works.
very true lasorb