Mitsubishi ML520G71...Red Holy Grail or Flashlight Fail ??

[Xytrell]

Do you have a link to the torture testing. Some threads over there have thousands of posts.

http://laserpointerforums.com/f52/ra...ode-67381.html

[Fenechlaser]

Any news on the optics?

[LaNeK779]

.. which brings us to the point of .. who's going to invent the "quick-swap-perfect-alignment-diode-mount" hehe ..

i have a different approach to this. if i have to "invest" the money on a spare diode, why not build a dual and drive both very very conservatively? this way it will never fail

[badger1666]

what drive current did you use ??

And for those wondering if the diode is capable of 1w corrected output it gets close.

Also do you just want the final results come sunday / fail or every 12 hours with the burn in?


Attachment 28643

[CDBEAM]

SF.....What was the off axis angle that you used to get acceptable results when propagating two (2) knife edged beams into the cylinderical lenses. I understand that we need to be as close to on-axis arrangment as possible. If we use (2) beams side by side... oo ... or (4) beams in an over and under design... 88 ... both depend on the abillity to put dual knife edged beams into the C-Lenses....and have an output of combined beams which fit on our scanner mirrors and have acceptable divergence. See my latest cartoon attached ( Shows a (3) degree off-axis condition).

Thanx,
BEAM

Note: THIS is a concept drawing....and components could be placed in a more compact arrangment.

I just did a few tests to see if it would be possible to knife edge these before the lava cylinder correction and the results are positive. The beams have to enter the first cylinder slightly angled towards the cylinder axis. The offset of each diode to the cylinder axis has to be pretty much equal yet as close to the axis as possible. The question remaining is, what will be the best divergence with a reasonable aperture beam size be. Testing was done with the Optima lens as collimator.

[Solarfire]

Hard to say what the optimal angle would be, like I said it was a on the fly setup just to see if it would even be possible. It also depends on how far from the coli to the first cylinder. When I tested I had 2 of Dave’s mounts side by side about 10cm from the first cylinder angled towards the cylinder axis until the beams pretty much overlap on the 2nd cylinder and in the far field. With the bounce mirrors this should be much easier, trial and error tweaking.

[CDBEAM]

Well....we are now talking a very small angular off-centre !!!. AutoCad is good for laying these things out !!! It ALL looks perfect in the virtual world !!!
Anyway....See the attached drawing. YES....Bounce mirrors would be very much demanded here !! At a seperation distance of about 58mm...the resultant off-axis angle would be 0.360 degree. Very little indeed. How...if any this off-axis geometry would effect the far field....or....let us say a 30M far field....I do not know ??? How far is too far ??? BTSOM !!!

Anyway....SF....thanx for your reply !!!

BEAM

[badger1666]

@steve-o
divergence = 1.09
and heres a couple of pics DSC_0205.jpgDSC_0208.jpg

[planters]

LaNeK779,
One reason you might do this is that diodes fail in an unpredictable way(the extreme example is the LOCs) it isn't only directly related to power levels. But the better reason is that with these large beam diodes you can only squeeze so many diodes onto a scanner with a given divergence. Four diodes may be a limit and to get max power you will need to up the power levels. If survival tests don't manage to kill a diode after an acceptable time interval then the power input WILL be raised and raised until they do. Replacing a $60 diode in a quad every 25-30 hours of actual on time (if it is easy) isn't so bad.

[polishedball]

Nice work!

15chars

@steve-o
divergence = 1.09
and heres a couple of pics DSC_0205.jpgDSC_0208.jpg