Dear methhack -
Good, glad you took it in the 'spirit' with-which it was intended.. Only 'point' was - kudos to your pioneering-spirit, and-all - that's what this place it all-about - but,
you must-realize - the sum-total of researching-skill / intelligence in this community is pretty-doggone phenominal... you've got peeps, younger than 20 / early-20s, working on near-zero budgets, etc, and whom consistently demonstrate astonishingly-brilliant thinking, solid-methodology, and are able to quantify / demonstrate their research / finds, with known / measurable techniques and standards...
..but, when we see pix of what looks like low-grade pointer-cores / el cheapo-maximo modules and pretty questionable-lookin test-rigs.. (..let-alone any sort of test-validation equipment, ie: even anything like an O-scope, etc...), and when calls for more data / clarification / counter-points from the experienced-world of actual laser R+D, get met with '..no problem..'-replies?.... well, this all starts to feel like... well.. like the 'editorial-comic', there...
So, keen to see some-more verifiable-data, and tech-questions squarely-answered, vs sidestepped / whitewashed...
cheers..
j