Newbie help on US Cert. RGB analogue laser purchase

[sugeek]

One thing to check are the specifications of the mirrors on the galvos you propose to use in your custom laser projector, specially when it comes to the blue laser. Unfortunately I found out the hard way when I bought a pair of DT30 galvos from Dave (Lasershowparts on Ebay) that my blue laser operating at 457 nm was leaking over 10% of the laser power through the mirrors. Considering my Melles Griot laser had an output of 400 mW and cost me 5,000 I didn't want to waste precious blue photons. ... I shelved the noisy galvos until I can replace the mirrors. I recently tested those same DT30 galvo mirrors with a violet 405 nm laser and a whopping 65% of the laser power was leaking through those crappy mirrors.

One Stop Laser Shop can still get you mirrors, give them a call.

Matt - Rick should do a good job, I like that he includes the variance and first show report with his projectors.

-Adam

[Mattatya]

oops Accidentally unsubscribed to thread and didn't know how to subscribe without leaving a mesage

[DanG]

LED and Matt,

I am not sure who you spoke with regarding LaserWorld and X-Laser products but the answer you have received seems to both be overly simplified and not quite right. Here is the real deal... from the horse's mouth.

We use LaserWorld as a system integrator for some of our models, not a finish manufacturer. Without belaboring the specifics, we take some of their designs and engineering, make replacements and adjustments as necessary to meet US and our internal product standards and then brand the line to represent the difference between LaserWorld product and a frequently heavily modified "Nocturne" product. It is roughly the same as any other manufacturer who uses components of other companies who also sell "house" brands. You judge the projector not based upon the house brand sold in a foreign land but the reputation and standards of the person from whom you are actually purchasing.

Now - that having been said - I have no idea where the Min/typical wording would have been found on our site. In fact, we go to GREAT lengths to describe precisely how we rate the power of our projectors. It is new and different, but it surely bears no relationship to the LW standard. You can read it here: http://www.nocturnelaser.com/Nocturne/Technical.html.

Marc from CT has an excellent reputation so I surely would not want to sway you from using his products, or Rick's for that matter though I do not know much about them, but I did want to clear up the points of difference.

RGY is a great choice for your needs. Much better I think that building your own and having to deal with a product report.

Dan

[LEDpaint]

Dan,

That's exactly the page I was thinking of in my previous post. Honestly, the wording on that page is very confusing. To me, it comes off as "we don't rate our lasers by adding the power of the diodes and we don't rate it by measuring power from the aperture, either." So how does X-Laser rate them? Saying things like a 1 watt laser is "quite nearly half the power of a two watt unit" gave me that wtf?? moment that changed my mind on a purchase.

Perhaps if you cut down the word count and gave a real world example, it would clarify those statements. Using a particular model you sell, how about listing some stats such as typical diode power, power at the aperture, what your rating system rates the entire projector, etc so the customer has a better sense of what it is that you're saying? I understand you need to be as non-technical as possible for us non-techies, but I think that the current wording does more harm than good. It did in my case. A little semi-technical explanation is fine as there's probably more semi-morons like me than complete morons likely to look at a product as technologically sophisticated as yours.

Understand, I'm not knocking your products, I'm just letting you know what originally put me off. I hope this feedback helps.

[DanG]

LED,

Hm... yes. The feedback is helpful and frankly we knew that we were going to encounter some resistance on this because it is so different. Let me see if I can clear up a few things:

First, as is noted on that page, the spec sheets for the units which have all now been made but now just have to be posted on the new site do indeed list the raw diode power as would of course be appropriate. The problem we were running into in our specs is that when you take one optical design such as a single RGB diode that merely has to shoot at a galvo, that design is generally much more efficient than a multi diode design with three or four bounces before the galvos and maybe a splitter cube or two. Two lasers with the same base power could have 30+% emission differences depending on the quality and quantity of optics... that is not really helpful to anyone I feel.

Second, measuring the emitted power through the front of the fixture is absolutely fraught with problems and inconsistencies from measurement to measurement. Moreover, to be done in any kind of repeatable fashion would require opening the case for "maintenance" procedures which are disallowed by the FDA under the requirements for non-interlocked housings. That is no good either..

So what we have done is developed a formula - which at present is being looked at by the lawyers to see if it is eligible for IP protection so I cannot get too much further into that - which takes constants like the diode power (assuming that particular diode passed quality control) and then factors in projected optical losses and other components such as bounce scatter to obtain a new number which is then simply rounded to the nearest easily understandable number... we decided it was too much to have a 1.1812W model. =)

I can surely understand how that might be a little off-putting to some which is in part why we have made the spec sheets with hard numbers. A large part of our client base are say bar owners that don't give a crap about optical characteristics but are mad when a "1W" with XYZ attributes is dimmer than a "1W" with ABC attributes. This kind of makes it a little easier for us and them... most days.

When we were first having discussions on this board about the new line I asked for folks to reserve judgement for a while and give us six months to work with the engineering. These new power ratings which will be extended to cover our entire line, are not the best for marketing (because they are not the biggest numbers possible) but they are part of our commitment to accurately represent our products and consistently deliver quality laser projectors. And of course with the benefit of time and input, we will continue to refine as we go.

Thanks!

Dan

[LEDpaint]

Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense and I see the bind you are in. I applaud you for wanting to be so straight up with your customers, and it's unfortunate that I and any others took that info the wrong way.

If I may suggest, take that info out altogether until you have finalized your new product rating system. Possibly replace it with something in your product descriptions to explain that the more expensive projectors have better optics and deliver more usable power, thus justifying the extra expense. Simple enough and essentially true. Perhaps a comparison chart of products with this simply stating "product x: good optics, product y: better optics, product z: best optics," etc.? (I'm a big fan of comparison charts). You can always have a techie page with more detailed info.

[buffo]

measuring the emitted power through the front of the fixture is absolutely fraught with problems and inconsistencies from measurement to measurement.

I really have a problem with this statement. It is *easy* to measure the power at the aperture. There are a couple commonly accepted methods:

1) Using a custom DB-25 connector, apply +5 volts to the modulation lines for red, green, blue, and the shutter, and connect the interlock loop pins to satisfy the projector interlock. With no X or Y signal applied, the scanners should center themselves, projecting a static, full power beam. Then simply measure the power at the aperture using a calibrated meter.

2) Using a controller that supports abstracts, create a white circle in the software and display it. Now reduce the scan size to zero, and you will have a single, static, full power beam being displayed. Again, measure the power at the aperture using a calibrated meter.

Note that method # 1 is the preferred method, since it eliminates any modulation of the beam. (Some controllers blank all the lasers for a brief period of time between frames; this is why method # 2 is done using the abstract generator, which limits this blanking period even more.) But either method is acceptable. More to the point, this is something that can easily be repeated by a customer, assuming they have a power meter.

I am curious as to what "inconsistencies" you expect to encounter using either of these two methods... Dirty optics would be the only case that springs to mind, but that should not be an issue if the case airflow is properly filtered. And in any case, optics don't become fouled overnight. A customer should be able to check the power of the projector when he receives it and be able to verify it's power output.

To claim anything to the contrary suggests that you're trying to cover up a power deficiency.

So what we have done is developed a formula which takes constants like the diode power (assuming that particular diode passed quality control) and then factors in projected optical losses and other components such as bounce scatter to obtain a new number which is then simply rounded to the nearest easily understandable number.

This sounds fishy. Why not actually measure the power? The losses through the optics may vary slightly from one projector to the next, meaning that some 1 watt projectors will make exactly 1000 mw while others might make slightly more, but for any single projector the losses will always be the same. So if you measure the power before you ship it, I should be able to verify that power level when I receive it. (Assuming that I have a calibrated power meter.)

A large part of our client base are say bar owners that don't give a crap about optical characteristics but are mad when a "1W" with XYZ attributes is dimmer than a "1W" with ABC attributes.

Which is why publishing the actual power output is a good thing. OK, publish the ratings of the individual lasers inside as well, if you want, but what really counts in the end is how much power comes out the front window. That's the number people want to see. It also allows actual comparisons to be made between different models. (Assuming that they're all the same color, of course... We all know that apparent brightness has just as much to do with the wavelength of the light as with the intensity.)

These new power ratings which will be extended to cover our entire line, are not the best for marketing (because they are not the biggest numbers possible) but they are part of our commitment to accurately represent our products and consistently deliver quality laser projectors.

I don't know. It sounds a lot like AMD's idea from several years ago to start quoting "effective" clock speeds on their processors, rather than quoting the actual clock speeds. Their justification was that "our processors do more work per clock cycle, so we don't want to rate them by clock speed but rather by this nebulous performance rating we've come up with..." And the market responded with, "No thanks, we want to know the raw clock speed of the processor. We'll make our own judgments about how it performs..."

I think you are falling into a similar trap with your concept of "engineering" the power spec numbers. I feel it would be far better to simply publish the actual power output value. True, this may mean that some of your 1 watt RGB projectors might actually produce 1.1 or 1.2 watts, so you'll need to label (and variance) them appropriately. But no one is going to complain if they buy a 1 watt projector that makes a few hundred extra milliwatts. On the other hand, I *promise* you that people will be seriously pissed if they buy a 1 watt RGB and then discover that it only makes 750 mw at the aperture... (No matter what the "engineered power rating" on the spec sheet says.)

Adam

[DanG]

Adam,

Forgive me but I have no idea how to multi-quote so I am going to kind of make this work...

<<I am curious as to what "inconsistencies" you expect to encounter using either of these two methods... Dirty optics would be the only case that springs to mind, but that should not be an issue if the case airflow is properly filtered. And in any case, optics don't become fouled overnight. A customer should be able to check the power of the projector when he receives it and be able to verify it's power output. To claim anything to the contrary suggests that you're trying to cover up a power deficiency.>>

First, as I will mention again later and as I have mentioned perviously in this very thread, we DO publish the raw power specs at the diode as is industry practice. So if someone really wants to go looking for a power deficiency that would be a good place to start and we make all of that available.

Second, what you refer to as *easy* is not easy at all for our customer base. You addressed the problem like a laser tech which would be appropriate for our shop... not for a nightclub owner's basement, or a DJ's garage, or the mechanical room of a cruise ship. The TRUBeam power we reference is not about being technically precise, as we say on the page, but about allowing people for whom this technology is new to make accurate and fair judgements before they purchase, nothing more or less.

Third, I cannot think of more than two or three of our customers who would have the skill to make a custom DB-25. Moreover, I personally have never seen a filtered laser system that does not even still require cleaning from time to time so dirty optics are and will be an issue as is internal misalignments due to rough handling and even initial shipping. Any of those could require opening the case to get an accurate measurement out the front even if your methodology were practical for the average joe (though I support the underlying principal entirely).

My claims to the contrary are not as you suggest an attempt at a coverup as would be belied by publishing the raw specs, they are more an attempt to simplify what can be a complex technical issue for the benefit of non-technical people.

<<I think you are falling into a similar trap with your concept of "engineering" the power spec numbers. I feel it would be far better to simply publish the actual power output value... But no one is going to complain if they buy a 1 watt projector that makes a few hundred extra milliwatts. On the other hand, I *promise* you that people will be seriously pissed if they buy a 1 watt RGB and then discover that it only makes 750 mw at the aperture... >>

First, I would argue that most major brands of laser products publish the raw diode spec, not an emission spec. At least, I have never seen one do so because of the potential for variation. I doubt many would say that Arktos is a bad laser company or is deceptive in its specifications and yet it specs beam sources only and does not even attempt at an optical loss estimate. MediaLas is the same as does LaserNet and many others.

I think that part of the problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding that as you say "a few hundred extra mW" no one is going to complain about. In my experience that is very incorrect. Most of our users use multiple types of lasers in arrays or larger rigs so if one is brighter than the one next to it the question becomes "what is wrong with that laser that is too dim?" even though the brighter one is just over spec. If you are dealing with one laser in a club, sure, no problem. But If I have a guy that buys four different lasers for different parts of the club and two have the same actual power but are built differently making one dimmer, I am getting a return costing hundreds of dollars in shipping and time.

In short, publishing an emission specification sets us up for customers to be unhappy based upon a measurement that was taken incorrectly or under conditions different than certification by someone who does not know what they are doing. At that point, perception is 100% of reality. So we choose this other path that would make it easier for them to compare between units AND for you and the rest of the techies we publish the actual beam source specifications like nearly everyone else. If you or anyone else are interested in a specific unit I will even happily provide a hard maximum expected optical loss coefficient which should get you pretty darn close to emission power under lab conditions.

[gottaluvlasers]

Hi X-Laser (Dan I think right?)...

First off, i am sincerely sorry for helping steer this thread off of the original topic, but i *really* want to comment here. I feel i have to.

X-Laser, i have said this prviously when you posted here, i honestly do applaud you for addressing the issues people have with you (and/or Laserworld) publically. I sincerely do have much more respect for you as a company for taking our questions head on ad not beating around the bush. Kudos for that! But now, i must get to the negative (sorry man! )

Where companies *ROYALLY PISS* people off is when they start to play games. This is EXACTLY what Laserworld does with its power ratings and it *seems* as if it is EXACTLY what you are doing now. It is what Used car salesmen do when they calculate numbers for sales and its exactly what it sounds like here.

Why is this such a hard concept to to wrap our heads around? If you sell a 1 Watt projector, labeled as a 1W projector, then it should OUTPUT 1 Watt!!! PERIOD!! End of story. Case closed. No questions asked! None of this crap like...
-"Well, the PBS used is from Antarctica. They use a different glass than that other company. so its losses are more"
-"Well, the mirrors must be glued on wrong and really dirty. Please clean your mirrors and re measure the power and you will see that the 600mW you measured will now miraculously be 1W like you purchased!"
-"Please understand, we measure our lasers on Mondays at high noon with the beams entering from the left. You measured them on tuesdays at 4 pm when the gravitational pull of the earth was more so it caused a quantum shift in the state of the flux capacitors and caused the reading to be less"

Come on Dan...

If you sell a 1W laser, it should be a 1 Watt laser!!! don't start pulling the bullsh*t that other less respected companies pull. If you are building projectors with optics and electronics that cause such enormous losses that make a 1W Labeled projector output only 750mW (or whatever) than you need to revaluate your manufacturing and engineering.

If you build a "1 Watt X Laser" and at the aperture, at full power, it is only outputting 800mW, wouldnt it make MUCH MORE SENSE, and be much more ethical to maybe sell the projector as a 750mW?? This will cause what, *maybe* a $100 loss in your bottom line profit margin?? If that??

Please don't take this as me "patting myself on the back" but, do yo uknow how many MORE sales i have gotten from customers because i have either A) completely replaced a (for example) 1W green laser that was only outputting 950mW? or B) customer purchased a 1W green laser and all i had was a 1.2W and sold it as a 1W??

wouldnt you rather take the higher road and over satisfy a custmoer than try to justify less than advertised specs with BS engineering formulas that need to be reviewed by a lawyer? LOL, come on...if yo uneed to have your Power rating specifications be reviewed by lawyers, than i think it is VERY safe to assume that there is some very fishy things going on.

Why do you need to make power output claims into such a technical, over dramatic process!?

1W means 1 Watt. 500mW means 500mW. 750mW means 750mW. i am really dumbfounded why you would try to justify anything other than that.

If you sell "XYZ Laser" for $5,000 can i purchase it for $4500? I mean under the right circumstances and under the right monetary exchange rates and in the right countries, or if i have a really good lawyer come up with some fancy terminology, i can make it legal so that my $4500 is the same as $5000.

Sorry Dan, i sometimes get long winded, but i really get annoyed with this crap. Especially from a respected American Manufacturer. Laserworld, we all expect this sh*t from. You, i think we all expect MUCH more!!!

Do the right thing.

-Marc

[DanG]

Wow- Marc that was really bitchy... =)

Ok look - first of all you apparently didn't read my post about the lawyer. Its being looked at not for accuracy but to see if it can or should have intellectual property protection. We spent a lot of time developing something new and frankly we have spent a lot of nights grumbling because someone has ripped off our something new and made it cheaply and worse.

Second, your absolutely impassioned response appears to have a lot more to do with other people than me because you have taken some of my points to the extreme in order to make them sound unethical and THAT I do not appreciate. I will gladly and any time discuss the merits and shortcomings of an approach, points of technical subtlety, methodologies, etc. but not like that. You post in parts assumes me/us to be dishonest and incompetent and I take great pride in being neither.

Moreover and more importantly, you have no idea how our specifications correlate to anything else because you have both neither seen the method by which we calculate the power to determine its appropriateness or lack thereof nor have you touched one of our new projectors. You are simply making an assumption and then getting pissed about it.

I would like to personally invite you to visit our shop anytime you like and if we can arrange a mutually agreeable time I will happily give you both a tour and an in depth explanation of our compliance process, spec standards, and quality assurance process. I will ask you to sign an NDA about some of the specifics we consider proprietary but of course allow you to discuss it in a general way for the benefit of those here.

THEN, you can call bulls**t if you still think that it is appropriate. And I will happily continue to come and answer questions. We have nothing to hide.

To answer your question, would it be more ethical to call a 1W source, 800mW aperture a 3/4W and lose a hundred dollars?

Money is almost irrelevant to me... If a laser is 800mW at the aperture and you call it a 3/4 watt then the question in court becomes:

"Did you advise my client of the strength of the laser he was purchasing?"

"Yes, we sold the product as a three quarter watt laser."

"Could the laser reasonably have been emitting more than 750mW?"

"Um, yes... the measurement at certification was 800mW"

"So in other words, you failed to disclose the actual emission strength of your product by an amount TEN TIMES GREATER than an average person can own without a special license, correct?"

"It's not that simple..." ... and we're screwed.

And that is only one variation of MANY. In other words, as long as we are in a regulated industry with a product that carries the potential for harm, it is not as simple as it may seem when you are in the market we are in.

Lastly, to answer a question from your previous posting on another thread, I got confirmation of this today from Dale at CDRH:

One should be addressed to the Division of Dockets Management address:

Food and Drug Administration
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)
5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20857

and the second should be sent to the CDRH address with the requester's show report:

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Document Mail Center – WO66-G609
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002

You're welcome.

Dan