You mean the longest thread in the history of the entire internet thing? Ohooo
LaNeK79,
Do you remember the parameters, such as 500mm baseline followed by a (+)100mm FL then 3mm later (-)100mm FL ? BEam specs? I ask because I suspect this approach might facilitate tighter knife edging.
In any case, then is the best Dave's 2.9mm followed by a Dr lava 6x cylinder pair, spaced aprox 60mm back, possibly correcting two beams at once?
kiyoukan,
I missed any posted discussion about these lenses. What's this about?
please read its even on the GB condensed.
And daves 2.9mm lens is not the best, daves new 2mm FL lens is the best.
There is a large difference, please read the posts they have the answers to most of what you ask.
Do you remember the parameters, such as 500mm baseline followed by a (+)100mm FL then 3mm later (-)100mm FL ? BEam specs? I ask because I suspect this approach might facilitate tighter knife edging.
it is clear to me now that i have not understood the question correctly.
what i did was to use a single positive lens (of around 95mm FL, maybe it was 92mm) in front of dave's 2mm collimator.
this yielded a beam that seemed kinfd of usable, but was blurry and when i tested in with a longer throw, it proved to be quite divergent, too.
what i can tell for sure is that (given a certain ammount of fuss and frustration, but then again i have never built a marvellous deep freeze red assy or a dye pumping rig ) using adjustable diode mounts and dave's 2mm lenses, with an "under_over" knife edge i.e. ":" and placing a set of standard (3x) dr lava cylinders approx 40-50mm away from the knife edge, you can correct two beams at once and hace something that can easily fit on 7mm galvo mirrors (i.e. a beam of around 5mm)
in the pic i post, the under_over knife edge is replaced by a wp and pbs but still the beams are stacked like ":"
the 2.9mm lens is much more fussy in terms of centering and it yields a fatter beam at apperture. In general, people seem t have left it behind.
I have high hopes for blue though, this and the cyls could be the magic bullet combo
Moving lens or moving diode? I think moving diode is the best solution. This should prove true especially for multiple diode combiners. To date I have built a lot of modules with these diodes. The biggest PITA is getting things overlapped or aligned with the high mag. telescopes. I believe that the moving lens is going to change the beam height or exit angle more than the moving diode. The lens is held at the same height at all times with the moving diode mount. So in theory after the diode is centered the beams should all be the same height and exit angle from one mount to the next. With the moving lens this will not be the case.
I certainly see the merits of the moving lens. However, I think it will cause more frustration in alignment than its worth.
my .02$
I have now evolved to agree with the statement from LS above. Having either the LD or the Colli lens adjustable will greatly assist in optimal alignment between the LD and collimation lens...but I think a stationary Colli lens may be the way to go !! I will build one and see !! Please see attached drawing. I have also returned to a friction fit for the LD itself. BEAM....Thanx Logsquared
Beam Axiom #1 ~The Quantum well is DEEP ! Photons for ALL !!
.
Beam Axiom #2 ~Yes...As a matter of fact...I DO wear tinfoil on my head !!
.
Beam Axiom #3 ~Whe'n dout...Po ah Donk awn et !!
.
Beam Axiom #4 ~A Chicken in every Pot, and a Laser Lumia in every Livingroom !!
.
Beam Axiom #5 ~"Abstract Photonic Expressionism"....is "Abstractonimical" !!
.
Beam Axiom #6 ~ "A Posse ad Essea" ~ From being possible to being actual ...is the beam target !
Moving the diode or moving the lens.
No matter how you slice that one your going to have the beam come out at different angles or heightsmoving the diode though is just going to make it harder to keep them cool
Or am i wrong??
When God said “Let there be light” he surely must have meant perfectly coherent light.
Moving the diode or moving the lens.
No matter how you slice that one your going to have the beam come out at different angles or heightsmoving the diode though is just going to make it harder to keep them cool
Or am i wrong??
Actually the collimator/barrel should be stationary, this will keep beam heights at a same level. Besides that moving the collimator requires moving a greater mass since the material thickness should at least be that of the barrel length to minimize possible tilt/wobble of the barrel in the threads which is also more critical with short fl collimators. As to temperature dissipation, a proper design of the diode carrier will keep this in check. The design that I have for example has a ±0.5mm adjustment rang which is more than enough. The gap of the adjustment range between mount and diode carrier is therefore 0.5mm which is filled with thermal paste to ensure good thermal conductivity to the mount.
Hi all, I've also put in for some parts on the GB, I have never used a wave plate before, please tell me if I'm wrong.
The purpose of the wave plate is to turn the beam through 90 degrees? is that right. I plan on building a quad set up as shown in a previous post. I was thinking that I could build effectively 2 dual set-ups, one having a larger base plate to allow me to attach the second dual set at a 90 degree to the first? I know it may look strange but it would eliminate the need for the wave plate.
Maybe I'm just going to make thing harder for myself.
is that a tested theory ? to keep the beams heights at the same level
Originally Posted by Solarfire
Actually the collimator/barrel should be stationary, this will keep beam heights at a same level. Besides that moving the collimator requires moving a greater mass since the material thickness should at least be that of the barrel length to minimize possible tilt/wobble of the barrel in the threads which is also more critical with short fl collimators. As to temperature dissipation, a proper design of the diode carrier will keep this in check. The design that I have for example has a ±0.5mm adjustment rang which is more than enough. The gap of the adjustment range between mount and diode carrier is therefore 0.5mm which is filled with thermal paste to ensure good thermal conductivity to the mount.
When God said “Let there be light” he surely must have meant perfectly coherent light.
hey tony
stick to the waveplate or its going to be a pita
as for the waveplate it does not pysicaly rotate the beam from ll to = , just the phase of the light passing throught it
so it will come out looking the same as it went in, how are you planning to set yours up ?
make sure its easy to rotate it, and be able to lock it in place.
Originally Posted by tonyaztec
Hi all, I've also put in for some parts on the GB, I have never used a wave plate before, please tell me if I'm wrong.
The purpose of the wave plate is to turn the beam through 90 degrees? is that right. I plan on building a quad set up as shown in a previous post. I was thinking that I could build effectively 2 dual set-ups, one having a larger base plate to allow me to attach the second dual set at a 90 degree to the first? I know it may look strange but it would eliminate the need for the wave plate.
Maybe I'm just going to make thing harder for myself.
What do you think.
Thanks Tony
When God said “Let there be light” he surely must have meant perfectly coherent light.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by planters
) using adjustable diode mounts and dave's 2mm lenses, with an "under_over" knife edge i.e. ":" and placing a set of standard (3x) dr lava cylinders approx 40-50mm away from the knife edge, you can correct two beams at once and hace something that can easily fit on 7mm galvo mirrors (i.e. a beam of around 5mm)
Squat that bug, 
