Exact spec of lens27

[megaton]

Hi Dave

Mount and lens?
How much?

Looks GOOOOD!

Cheers,
Ed

[danielbriggs]

Hi Andreas,

Focal length is 3mm, NA is 0.5

Hope this helps

That should give a beam ~2.1x1.4mm with a red LOC. Nice

[andy_con]

That should give a beam ~2.1x1.4mm with a red LOC. Nice

which isnt far from 1mm by 1.5mm when using telescopics.

so it all comes down to price

[edison]

i rather use a telescope because when something is 1/100 mm out of line the telescope will reduce that also with a factor 3 (if using a telescope 3:1 ) Also stacking te beams is easier.

[dave]

Correct me if I'm wrong Edison, but aren't you also infringing on a certain patent? And you are intending on selling your modules?

[Solarfire]

I have a few of these lenses ordered, and ill be getting a retainer made, hopefully they shouldn't be too far off

@Hey Dave,

Have you got a timeframe/price idea for these yet?

Cheers!

[LaNeK779]

this patent is a strange story to me. so, is the use of a pcx and pcv lens prohibited from now on? (commercialy speaking) are all telescopics banned?

so we can't knife edge and reverse telescope the beam any more?

what if another company registers a patent for the use of aspheric collimators? or polarising optics?

[edison]

I don,t think so Arctos , rgb and Kvant using the same basic methods. They al use telescopes. Also i developed my own mounts and system at my own dimensions.
Sooner then later someon copies it any way.

[-bart-]

i rather use a telescope because when something is 1/100 mm out of line the telescope will reduce that also with a factor 3 (if using a telescope 3:1 ) Also stacking te beams is easier.

Watch out, this is partly true !!

Many people run into stability issues when using telescopics.

When using a 1:3 telescope to reduce your beamdiameter, your divergence will increase by a factor 3, nothing new here. So your conclusion that positional drift is reduced by a factor 3, is true. Things never drift in x,y and z axis alone, they drift angular too.
Harnessing angular drift is the key to successful combining diodes.
When using a 1:3 telescope the angular drift is increased by by a factor 3.

If your theory would be true, one could use huge long focal length collimators, stack super fat beams, reduce them by a 1:10 telescope, have a super thin beam and all drift would be reduced by a factor 10.

I'm sorry, no free lunch again using telescopics.

[andy_con]

Watch out, this is partly true !!

Many people run into stability issues when using telescopics.

When using a 1:3 telescope to reduce your beamdiameter, your divergence will increase by a factor 3, nothing new here. So your conclusion that positional drift is reduced by a factor 3, is true. Things never drift in x,y and z axis alone, they drift angular too.
Harnessing angular drift is the key to successful combining diodes.
When using a 1:3 telescope the angular drift is increased by by a factor 3.

If your theory would be true, one could use huge long focal length collimators, stack super fat beams, reduce them by a 1:10 telescope, have a super thin beam and all drift would be reduced by a factor 10.

I'm sorry, no free lunch again using telescopics.

its not the telesopics that cause stability issues. existing stability issues which you may not have noticed show up 3x as worse when using telescopics.

but its just a case of working through them