Printable View
I'm not really worried about the mirror coating as we know that First Contact has no detrimental effects to this in most cases (kecked's issue noted) but more over the effects of FC and the silicon substrate that the mirror coating is applied too. I'm thinking that FC may cause the silicon to distort on even melt. It is possible for FC to seep over the edge of the mirror when applying. FC is not suitable for plastic lenses, is it safe with this type of silicon?
Carl
silicon (oxide I presume) is essentially glass so I doubt anything short of HF or NaOH would harm it.
Fair enough.
I for like the results of FC and would not want to give it up.
The "substrate" of the mirror normally doesn't play too much of a role in "adhesion" of the coating to the mirror. However, there is special tape made by 3M that is specifically designed to test optical coatings. You stick the tape onto the mirror and then pull it off. The coating BETTER NOT COME OFF -- otherwise it is an indication of poor adhesion.
This test is done on all of our mirrors. The ones that fail get sent back for re-coating. This is especially a problem for soft coatings like Silver (which is appealing because it has good reflectivity from blue through infrared).
I am very surprised that you were able to pull the coating off of a Cambridge mirror. Although I'm not a fan of the reflectivity of their coatings, I've never heard or seen a situation where the coating can be pulled off. My guess is that this is a one-off problem... If it's a simple 3mm mirror, we can send you one of ours.
By the way, the Silicon we use for our mirrors is called "single crystal silicon", which is the same thing that integrated circuits are made of. It's an element on the periodic table, right next to Aluminum. It's super stable, and over the past decades, integrated circuit manufacturers have had to figure out how to cut and polish it, and so we are taking advantage of the huge amount of knowledge gained in semiconductor processing.
Bill
Bill,
After my recent adventure with the mounting block for the EMS scanners, it would be very helpful that as soon as the optimal beam center line height for the 506 and Saturn scanner systems is known, if you could you list or post it.
Words instead of pictures... sorry, I'm just not "seeing it". I don't know if it is old age or what, but words just don't do it any more.
I can interpret "optimal beam center height" in so many ways... Please post a picture.
If you're talking about the entrance aperture (which is a standard terminology for mounted X-Y galvanometer systems), this is 0.715 inches.
Bill
Bill,
Your guess was a good one and that is compact even with the canted X scanner and that's even more impressive with the Saturn 5 having a substantially longer rotor than the 506. I used the cumbersome language because in an earlier post I believe you mentioned that a rectangular beam could be optimized to pass through the scanner depending on it's rotation about its axis. If that's true I wondered if the entrance aperture is not just round or square but maybe a little more complex.
In my latest video reviewing the EMS 8000 the height I am concerned with is made pretty clear. The projector that is waiting for your Saturn system is nearly identical except for the components that are custom fabricated for a given beam line height
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMonZHMTra4
Hi -- great video! Once again showing your prowess with lasers. Great stuff!
One part of the video amused me however, when you said you were impressed by the scanners. Heck. I was impressed by the software that was driving them, along with the show material too. I'm sure that had something to do with the great images :p
Bill
yeah... that show material is cool. have a huge fondness for wireframe with hidden line removal. it brings back memories of my old days of using amigas and lightwave for video production and performance art.
the software is also good, but i don't have the historic association. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pangolin
Hi Bill.
thanks for the mirror offer. I just ordered one today. If you'd like I'll try to remove the mirror carefully and send it to you. 1/2 of the mirror is still there so you can play with it if you like. I have to ship down the 6800 drivers anyway.
Yes indeed the adhesion is totally independent of the substrate durability. I had thought about resilvering it with the formaldehyde method but didn't feel like playing with it so I ordered a new one. Plus I have to take the mirror off to do it and then I have to sputter oxide on the surface to protect it. By that time I've missed several lunch time kettle bell classes! ie not worth the effort and I doubt the result would be flat enough. Now that I think of it they should have just sputtered silver in the first place.
Once the saturns and little drivers come out these go in the closet anyway.
ps: if I use fc in the future TO CLEAN I'll use the thread removal method rather than the tape method. I THINK THE TAPE JUST RIPPED IT RIGHT OFF. On the other hand I think hplc acetone and a single pass wipe will be my main stay as it was for years/