6x 405nm diode testing

[andy_con]

got it off to a fine art now, measuring only 35mm by 10mm by 18mm

[Laserman532]

I am sorry guys...but I do NOT like the epoxy idea at all.

The chances of you getting your diodes pressed into the mount at 90 degrees with respect to each other or worse yet...pressed in horizontal or vertical with respect to the orientation of the PBS cube has very little chance of great success.

It takes only a very small angular rotation of the polarization to loose huge copious amounts of power when combining in a PBS

Now if the aixiz rotates inside the epoxy then...nevermind...

I have watched this thread and cringe every time I see that epoxy.

boy...that is a load off my chest

[andy_con]

well im gona disagree

im yet to have an issue with pressing the diodes in at the right angle. providing you dont rush and do it properly its fine.

I am sorry guys...but I do NOT like the epoxy idea at all.

The chances of you getting your diodes pressed into the mount at 90 degrees with respect to each other or worse yet...pressed in horizontal or vertical with respect to the orientation of the PBS cube has very little chance of great success.

It takes only a very small angular rotation of the polarization to loose huge copious amounts of power when combining in a PBS

Now if the aixiz rotates inside the epoxy then...nevermind...

I have watched this thread and cringe every time I see that epoxy.

boy...that is a load off my chest

[p1t8ull]

I am sorry guys...but I do NOT like the epoxy idea

There's no pleasing some people.. he scorns copycats so should be over the moon when someone tries a different method

I do know what you're saying and it is the only shortfall, but with careful LD insertion or (as I did) a purpose made insertionmajig, this method does work very well

[Laserman532]

must be a language barrier...anyway...

if the technique is 100% reliable and 100% repeatable then it works for you.

My point is valid. Your epoxy method does not allow one to take a running polarized diode and rotate it while watching a power meter for maximum transmission (thru the PBS) or in the other axis rotate it for maximum reflection. For optimum performance every time. You cant argue facts.

your epoxy method is functional yet not optimum and too many variables left up to chance IMHO

what the hell, if it works for you...go for it!

In reference to copycats...I was talking about people taking someone's design and making copies instead of tossing the guy who invented it (i think chad) a few bucks. If one makes changes that improves functionality, features or vast price reductions then those would be improvements. But if one just makes copies to avoid slipping the inventor a few bucks just seems a tad unethical.


EDIT: I correct myself...it was dave who has the mounts everyone is copying http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...114#post113114


Doesn't affect me one way or the other.

[ElektroFreak]

My point is valid. Your epoxy method does not allow one to take a running polarized diode and rotate it while watching a power meter for maximum transmission (thru the PBS) or in the other axis rotate it for maximum reflection. For optimum performance every time. You cant argue facts.

I would agree with that.. the diodes should be able to be rotated. You'll get pretty close just by observing the fast axis of each diode, but fine tuning it would require being able to rotate.

[Laserman532]

I would agree with that.. the diodes should be able to be rotated. You'll get pretty close just by observing the fast axis of each diode, but fine tuning it would require being able to rotate.

*falling over on floor*

[ElektroFreak]

^hey, when you're right you're right.

[tocket]

must be a language barrier...anyway...

if the technique is 100% reliable and 100% repeatable then it works for you.

My point is valid. Your epoxy method does not allow one to take a running polarized diode and rotate it while watching a power meter for maximum transmission (thru the PBS) or in the other axis rotate it for maximum reflection. For optimum performance every time. You cant argue facts.

your epoxy method is functional yet not optimum and too many variables left up to chance IMHO

what the hell, if it works for you...go for it!

In reference to copycats...I was talking about people taking someone's design and making copies instead of tossing the guy who invented it (i think chad) a few bucks. If one makes changes that improves functionality, features or vast price reductions then those would be improvements. But if one just makes copies to avoid slipping the inventor a few bucks just seems a tad unethical.


EDIT: I correct myself...it was dave who has the mounts everyone is copying http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...114#post113114


Doesn't affect me one way or the other.

Are you sure dave is the one who made them first? I have a picture of one dating back to february 2008 and I'm pretty sure it didn't come from dave.

[Laserman532]

Are you sure dave is the one who made them first? I have a picture of one dating back to february 2008 and I'm pretty sure it didn't come from dave.

no i am not positive who made them first...but then again...that was not my point

after reading a few threads "dave" even sent the file to have others make them. so it appears if he invented it...he dosnt care...if he doesnt care...i dont care...

it appears "chad" is making some...if it is public domain ...shit I'll buy some
I am waiting for chad to post a price.

Do you know who invented it? It is a real cute design and appears to be functional in brass, aluminum is not as nice, functional...but not as nice a brass IMHO

Anyway I want to see how the extinction ratio turns out when pressing diodes into epoxied mounts...that is my real interest in this thread.