Axicons to combine diodes for a single beam.

[The_Doctor]

Post deleted, to avoid time wasting.

[MechEng3]

What about the idea.......of taking a small piece of 1mm first surface mirror material, cutting it into equilateral triangles and building a pyramid of sorts to try the theory? That would give you less than optimal results....but then you can see the results and document the process. If the mirrors were faceted closely I see no reason for a special cube.....but each has it's own caveat. I have a faceting machine here at home .... so that would be my first choice...then getting hold of the cube. Maybe 4 beams being better with the pyramid mirror??? If you have a corner cube reflector handy you will find some usefull things there that may help...

[The_Doctor]

Post deleted, to avoid time wasting.

[p1t8ull]

Which means nothing if you can't account for your objection specifically. I've explained a clear procedure for construction and adjustment, and each time you make the same single assertion, that it won't be practical.

I have already explained my reasons why I feel this would not be easy Doc, it has no secondary (far-field) adjustment, and whatever way you go this will be a fairly complicated assembly so difficult to make stable.
These are not show stoppers by any means, I'm just saying that in my opinion and experience this will not be easy to make/align/stabilise.

not much harder than using two lasers and a PBS

Of course it is. People generally mount the PBS on a MM1 or some kind of adjustable mount beacuse of the fine far field adjustment required to get the second beam overlayed with the first. I have seen one or two PBS simply epoxied into place and they work ok, but you're proposing the convergence of 3 or more beams on a fixed reflective combiner, so you don't have this option.
You said yourself that "For accurate PBS alignment the cube mount alone needs pitch and yaw and lateral translation" and this is my point, you don't have any with a axicon. Near field alignment is important but can be acomplished in a crude but never the less effective way, but more important is fine adjustment for far field alignment. Because the axicon/cube does not have any adjustment capability on each face, I think the diode mounting and ajustment mechanism will need to be more complex than a simple hinge or wedge. For instance, mounted on an MM1 that can be moved around to be able to position and aim the diode accurately. It's also unlikely (IMHO) that unless it's kept in very stable and controlled conditions that this could be made, adjusted once and never need to be re-aligned.

[The_Doctor]

Post deleted, to avoid time wasting.

[mixedgas]

I have test ran a 8 sided axicon. It will happen soon. 8 is not optimal. It can be adjusted for far field.

News to follow soon.

Steve Roberts

[allthatwhichis]

What will a regular beam splitting cube do at these angles...

[mixedgas]

What will a regular beam splitting cube do at these angles...

waste a lot of power, of not admit the beam.

Steve

[The_Doctor]

Post deleted, to avoid time wasting.

[mixedgas]

no 4 IS OPTIMAL, WITH ONE UP THE CENTER.

sTEVE