Mitsubishi ML520G71...Red Holy Grail or Flashlight Fail ??

[steve-o]

Well, wet blankets or not, I still got my 'good-enough' to fall back on :] so, still happy ..

[CDBEAM]

Andy...OK...Do I understand you correctly that your best results so far are with the unknown short FL lens ONLY...and without the use of any cylinderical optics. With this set up....what are the dimensions of your beam after the collimination lens ?? What are the dimensions of your beam at 38M ??

Please keep us posted !!! Thanks for your work !!

CDBEAM

[andyf97]

Just out of curiosity Andy which 0-like lens was this? I looked at their site and all their red lenses seem to be plastic :/

Steve and others, when I started to do these tests I started using the same lenses as everyone else to get base line similarities. Tried the o-like and I don't know if its glass or plastic, am not even sure if its really an o-like but was in a mount sent that was supposed to be an o-like. I had some G2 that are really G2 i use for blue so I tested both and got reasonable results as I said in my post. Then I started to tinker with different lenses I had in a box and found one that gave this great beam without any clipping, so I set about correcting it with other lenses and got super results. Still I don't know the specs of this first lens but trying to establish what it is.

While figuring out this lens, I am getting in some 500mW versions to also put in the same test as the specs are almost identical and I suspect the diodes are actually the same but one LOC allowing the greater power due to less heating.

If that works, I will be working on how to mix some together, PBS two of them will be easy enough but to put more will be tricky even with this beam I am getting now.

Any ideas welcome for combining.

[LaNeK779]

Thanks for your work on this andy and for sharing the results!

I think we should first figure out if these results are repeatable, so (if i may make a suggestion) you should focus on determining what lenses you have used. maybe a round the corner optics shop could help, measuring the lenses etc.

after we get a "best achievable specs" beam out of a single diode, we can then start talking about combining (other than a pbs of course)

thanks again!

[RGB LASER VERKOOP]

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK !

Maybe this is an option for make it smal and round.
this is a 635nm diode and make a good round dot!
Attachment 28041

[p1t8ull]

Cracked it with, 2mm at the diode 12mm at 38meters

So .26mR? Quite extraordinary!

PBS two of them will be easy enough but to put more will be tricky even with this beam I am getting now.

Going by those figures, a simple 4 stacked "::" will be 1W with a 4.5mm diameter beam and .26mR.
Double that with a cube for 2W with a 4.5mm diameter beam and .26mR.

A 3x telescope on the above and you'll have a better beam of 1.5mm and <1mR.

A matrix of 5x5 diodes poked through a 3x telescope will get you around 6W with <5mm and <1mR.
Double that with a cube and get you around 12W with <5mm and <1mR.

Combining is the easy bit, understanding how you are getting 2mm and .26mR with conventional optics is cooking my noodle

[andyf97]

So .26mR? Quite extraordinary!

Going by those figures, a simple 4 stacked "::" will be 1W with a 4.5mm diameter beam and .26mR.
Double that with a cube for 2W with a 4.5mm diameter beam and .26mR.

A 3x telescope on the above and you'll have a better beam of 1.5mm and <1mR.

A matrix of 5x5 diodes poked through a 3x telescope will get you around 6W with <5mm and <1mR.
Double that with a cube and get you around 12W with <5mm and <1mR.

Combining is the easy bit, understanding how you are getting 2mm and .26mR with conventional optics is cooking my noodle

cooking my noodle!!!! HAHAHAHAHA

[Solarfire]

So .26mR? Quite extraordinary!
Combining is the easy bit, understanding how you are getting 2mm and .26mR with conventional optics is cooking my noodle

What he said!

It goes against the laws of physics. Correct me if I’m wrong here but I had a beam Divergence of 8.57mrad just after the collimator (f=3.9mm) with a beam size @ the aperture of 0.8mm x 4mm and a far field @ 11m, 95mm x 4.5mm. This being said, I can’t imagine getting a beam with those dimensions with an even shorter FL collimator????

[andyf97]

What he said!
It goes against the laws of physics. Correct me if I’m wrong here but I had a beam Divergence of 8.57mrad just after the collimator (f=3.9mm) with a beam size @ the aperture of 0.8mm x 4mm and a far field @ 11m, 95mm x 4.5mm. This being said, I can’t imagine getting a beam with those dimensions with an even shorter FL collimator????

Try it with a shorter FL diode collimator, add DR lava correction optics and you'll see better results than what you had so far. I am no optics specialist, just simply tried some ideas and one of them worked.

[LaNeK779]

If you read the post above andy, you will see that with a short FL asphere, DrLavas prisms do not provide enough magnification of the fast axis. It has already been tried.

We need one of two things.

either a longer FL lens with a high NA to make it work with the doctor's prisms
or a shorter FL lens with a high NA and higher magnification prisms

Assuming we achieve the same divergence from both setups, the longer FL lens will yield a fatter beam.
The above is the fact, that's why you see many people getting sceptical with what you post.