Only pictures or a video would have made that better...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lasersbee
I just did a test on the A140 445nm LD I got from Dan...
I installed it into an Aixiz Module using the same 405 G-1 lens
I used to test the A130 in Post #51 of this Thread..
It is also mounted in a Z-Bolt clam shell heat sink..
Here are my results...
I tested in 100mW increments and stopped at 1500mW..
I used an Opto Power Corporation OPC-PS4005 Laser
Diode Driver and our Newport 1825C LPM with a Thermopile
Sensor as the last test.
It is to be noted that on both tests the resolution of the
current was limited to 10mA so the readings indicated could
be 1 to 9 mA more...
Starts lasing @ 3.77V -- 7mW
050mW ---- 260mA ---- 3.82V
100mW ---- 300mA ---- 3.87V
200mW ---- 370mA ---- 3.95V
300mW ---- 440mA ---- 4.02V
400mW ---- 510mA ---- 4.08V
500mW ---- 580mA ---- 4.13V
600mW ---- 650mA ---- 4.17V
700mW ---- 720mA ---- 4.21V
800mW ---- 790mA ---- 4.25V
900mW ---- 880mA ---- 4.28V
1000mW -- 960mA ---- 4.31V
1100mW -- 1050mA --- 4.34V
1200mW -- 1150mA --- 4.36V
1300mW -- 1260mA --- 4.39V
1400mW -- 1380mA --- 4.42V
1500mW -- 1570mA --- 4.45V
The readings are a bit different from my A130 test... but that could
also be due to perhaps the A130 was a low end binned LD or the
A140 was an extremely high end binned LD...
To really know if the A140 LD are better we need more tests by
other members... The tests I performed are not destructive... and can
be done by anyone that has an LPM and DMM...
These tests will not blow your 445nm Laser Diode if you keep the tests
under 12000mW and follow a few standard safety measures... IMO
Once I find more time and more 445nm LDs I'll do some more of these
tests to get a better Average Idea of what these LDs are..
Jerry
...............
http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...chmentid=11918
Some plunderings given up to simplicity
I have been experimenting with the 4 lasers I have built. The beam is hard to tame with plain optic solutions by my normal methods of thought...closed can hindrance . I wanted to FAC one....fear of dust would probably kill it in short order before I could get it aligned and sealed up. So the advent of the cylindrical lens was approached....needing beam compression from a reverse telescope. The lens data....not exactly right for this test as some of the beam spilled off the lenses...adding to losses. I had to work with what I had in hand. Lenses are uncoated purchased from Surplus Shed some time ago for 473 usage. I think the 40 mm fl may have actually been 42mm fl...does not matter now as this route has been abandoned by me..
1 12mm fl - yielding 2x12{tan40/2} 10.0691 diameter beam
2 40mm fl - yielding 2x40{tan12/2} 8.5022 beam diameter final output
Employing a plano convex/concave lens setup after this setup gave a beam diameter of around 4.7mm....totally usable and very good round shape at the spot and beam checkpoints. Divergence was near 2 mrads. The losses were horrid because I don't have 445nm or A/R broadband in the pieces used for this test. The total length of the test fixture was nearly 11" in length. Projector unfriendly to me.
So I feel like the implementation of the anamorphics are a keen idea at this point...not to mention the "adjustability" of the system as it is being constructed. They have worked great in other diode setups needing compression in one axis. The cylinder lens may be useful , but I wanted a simpler setup. Someone should be able to prove me wrong here as I didn't spend a lot of time in actually nailing everything down to a "T"......just quick and dirty testing. Experiments gave very nice spot service from a beam expander in reverse....but focal points were set for 50'....needing boat paddle mirrors to scan it though. More testing in Winlase and Glad to come soon.
