Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Laser Mounting-

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lancashire UK
    Posts
    1,379

    Default

    hi guys ..

    Just a sugestion .....

    If you use the optical layout as i used in the banthai beast

    there is no need to adjust the laser heads ( shims or side up and down adjustment ) as the nearfeild adjustment using just the M1 mounts takes care of any difference in hight of the heads

    all the best .... Karl
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails DSCF0512.jpg  


  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Banthai View Post
    hi guys ..

    Just a sugestion .....

    If you use the optical layout as i used in the banthai beast

    there is no need to adjust the laser heads ( shims or side up and down adjustment ) as the nearfeild adjustment using just the M1 mounts takes care of any difference in hight of the heads

    all the best .... Karl

    Wow...it'as amazing how obvious your solution is now that I've seen it.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canton, GA USA
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stanwax
    Indeed I do Tim
    http://www.photonlexicon.com/gallery...anwax/album72/
    nothing hi tech but they work a treat
    Thanks Rob!!

    Tim

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,147,489,459

    Smile

    Karl;

    The only problem with the layout in your picture is that it puts the scanners in the middle of the long edge of the projector. Once you send the beam 90 degrees left or right, you've got a long way to go to get to the output aperture at the edge of the baseplate.

    This is a layout I've been toying with if I ever re-build my current RGB rig. It dispenses with the floating tables idea and uses a second bounce mirror (just like your layout) to make alignment a snap. But the beam ends up hitting the scanners right at the corner of the plate, and once they make the 90 degree turn through the scanners the beam is headed out of the projector almost immediately. (This allows for a small aperture window.)



    Adam

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    7,067

    Thumbs up

    You got some good beam specs on those reds...

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,147,489,459

    Cool

    Well, they *are* labeled as Maxyz modules!

    The truth is that I changed the pen size by accident and didn't notice it right away. By the time I saw it, I decided to leave it.

    Adam

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buffo View Post
    Karl;

    The only problem with the layout in your picture is that it puts the scanners in the middle of the long edge of the projector. Once you send the beam 90 degrees left or right, you've got a long way to go to get to the output aperture at the edge of the baseplate.

    This is a layout I've been toying with if I ever re-build my current RGB rig. It dispenses with the floating tables idea and uses a second bounce mirror (just like your layout) to make alignment a snap. But the beam ends up hitting the scanners right at the corner of the plate, and once they make the 90 degree turn through the scanners the beam is headed out of the projector almost immediately. (This allows for a small aperture window.)



    Adam
    What kind of efficiency loss do you get with the extra mirror bounces?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,147,489,459

    Smile

    You loose about 1-2% for every bounce off a broad-band mirror, assuming it's a good mirror. A good dichro has less than 1% loss on a bounce, though the crappy one's I have from Edmunds loose more like 2-3% on a bounce.

    Basically adding one mirror to the beam path will cost you a few percent in total power. Well worth it for the ease of alignment. The only reason I didn't go this route (above) in the first place is that I didn't have the room on the optical table and I didn't have the extra mounts.

    If I had it to do over again though, I'd use the above layout. Adjusting those floating tables is a *bitch*. Normally you only have to do it once, unless you have a laser die on you. I've had 3 laser failures, and each time the replacement laser has been slightly different, so at this point I'm tired of those floating tables!

    Adam

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buffo View Post
    You loose about 1-2% for every bounce off a broad-band mirror, assuming it's a good mirror. A good dichro has less than 1% loss on a bounce, though the crappy one's I have from Edmunds loose more like 2-3% on a bounce.

    Basically adding one mirror to the beam path will cost you a few percent in total power. Well worth it for the ease of alignment. The only reason I didn't go this route (above) in the first place is that I didn't have the room on the optical table and I didn't have the extra mounts.

    If I had it to do over again though, I'd use the above layout. Adjusting those floating tables is a *bitch*. Normally you only have to do it once, unless you have a laser die on you. I've had 3 laser failures, and each time the replacement laser has been slightly different, so at this point I'm tired of those floating tables!

    Adam
    I have the same problem. I would have to swap out the base plate and completely re-do my layout design.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •