Sharp 638 nm 185mW diode

[jors]

Well, in fact not far better beam specs P73 vs Oclaro. Oclaro has a bit less wings, but P73 a bit better divergence. I prefer better divergence to suit my desired beam specs (bit less than 5mm 1mrad)..I can't achieve these specs with Oclaro, and anyway I can filter the wings with spatial filter if required..
You need to place the cyl set further away from the diode to get the desired expansion and achieve above beam specs. But my advise is 1st measure beam specs on your Blue/Green, and then design a RED setup to match both as close as you can. If for example your G/B is about say...1,2mrad, it has nonsense a single mode multi red with 3-elem @0,3mrad. Your G/B spot will be very large vs red spot after only a few meters, so you will loose good beam overlap ie color palette.

Unfortunately both my ocla diodes (since i have 2 projectors) didn't sit in the 100% proper way in their nuts. I had to put some aluminium foil under the PCX as You've explained until i got the best results. On the test i have a perfect corrected beam " - " but after gluing the one of the lenses moved around and you can see the final result a bit " S " shape. I was using epoxy ,hard to align again. See picture
Attachment 51585

When i have time i will try the P73 with the same optics. Many others said the mitsu diodes have far better beam than the oclaros.
Couple years ago i have PBS'ed P73s with Dr Lava cyl lens but i don't remember how was the beam divergence-shape-FF diameter. But served an 1W CNI DPSS green + 450 nm well!

[jors]

Yes, because beam out from diode collimator is always divergent, not parallel. So expansion is higher if you place the cyl set further away (expansion on CV is greater). Also you know, more beam expansion=fatter beam=less mrad=smaller farfield dot....less expansion=thinner beam=higher mrad=larger FF dot
Which is your scan aperature? Which are beam specs for both B/G (NF beam diameter/mrad?) and finally...which is your targeted power for REDs?

I've noticed when the cyl lenses are more far form the diode i get better divergence but the Near Field beam diameter is much larger then my scanner mirrors can handle...
Lets say i put the PCV at 50mm i got 0.5mRad but 6-7 mm at the aperature...
When i put the PCV next to the Diode i got 1mRad or worse but the beam -almost- fits to the galvo mirrors.
I've had to make a deal you know.

Many thanks for your help anyway i'm eating your words

Ferenc

[kecked]

If you can accept a little power loss you could bounce the fat beam around a bit to lengthen the distance between the scanner and the optics so it has a chance to start shrinking down. Adding say 6' before the scanners would do it. bounce 4 times between two mirrors 1.5' apart= 6' if you use a long mirror you can use just two mirrors and bounce between them. This is done all the time in Xperia trophotometers to add path length in IR units measuring a gas. They use a crystal. I think the loss would be high that way. Hey make a fiber coil?