New stock 6x cylindrical lens pairs

[dave]

Hi guys,

Just a quick note. I have plenty more stock of these little guys.

Beam data as measured by Jors in thread: NUBM07E 465nm 2.9W Diode Test:

"Hey! tested 6x Dave cyls with this diode (G2):

PCV distance from diode.............beam size (horiz)....mrad
-----------20mm-----------------------4,3mm------------1,1
-----------30mm-----------------------4,6mm------------0,81
-----------35mm-------------------------5mm------------0,65

distance between lenses 34mm"

$50AUD a set

[syrah]

um, what diode?

[catalanjo]

um, what diode?

NUBM07E 465nm 2.9W Diode ...seems pretty clear to me .
Cheers

[syrah]

Oh, I wonder how I missed that .


Dimensions of the lenses plz.

[dave]

NUBM07E 465nm 2.9W Diode ...seems pretty clear to me .
Cheers

After I edited it haha

[dave]

Both 12mm in height,
convex is 10mm wide
concave is 5mm wide

[dave]

I should add these work real well with a 405-g-2 on the 638nm reds, clean beam, ~ 5mm 1mrad IIRC

[syrah]

1mrad with a fat 5mm beam? Didn't know the reds (mitsubishi?) had such poor divergence. So if I will want to stack 2 beams (4 before PBS) and pass through these cylinders and then shrink it down to 6mm with telescopic lenses to make the beam fit the scanners what divergence can I expect?
I know this isn't a question about your lenses but I was considering getting them for doing this and maybe others are too.

PS. $50AUD is very good.

[catalanjo]

1mrad with a fat 5mm beam? Didn't know the reds (mitsubishi?) had such poor divergence. So if I will want to stack 2 beams (4 before PBS) and pass through these cylinders and then shrink it down to 6mm with telescopic lenses to make the beam fit the scanners what divergence can I expect?
I know this isn't a question about your lenses but I was considering getting them for doing this and maybe others are too.
PS. $50AUD is very good.

Stacking will only increase size in the vertical plane (assuming 1/2wave plate involved) so 5mm wide is already less than 6mm requirement. As for reducing vertical near field size (which from memory is not much more than 3mm/beam anyway = almost fits), without affecting the beam width you would need to use vertically mounted prisms with the inevitable losses involved (approx 18%) or just accept similar losses in over-spill on the scanners (easiest/cheapest route).

Either eliminate or modify your proposed telescope so it's 1 to1, and use it as a spatial filter (See Planter's threads for razor blade filters) and theoretically you will get your 1mrad
(although from experience I doubt this last bit so expect a little more).

If you still want a smaller near field beam the use a 2mm FL lens instead of the G2, these (along with most of the other stuff you need) you can get from "guess who!"...... yeah ....the man himself ..... Dave.

Cheers

[DanBarlow]

Let's see what the budget looks like after SELEM... I suspect there will be laser holes in it.