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

[CDBEAM]

LS...Thank you !! I am considering which direction I want to go !!! I have been pining for a micro lathe for some time....and do not have one yet !!! Too many wants....not enough $$$
Let me take a few more measurements as to the required size thru hole. As to my other Eureka concept... haha...I am not sure a retainer tube locked in place with a set screw would deliver adquate pressure to the diode back facia ??? As you said....the tighter we can get the LD to Mount interface...the better !! For now....even though a more complex design....I am leaning toward the original M9 x .5 threaded tube to secure the LD in the mount well area !!

Thank you Kiyoukan and Drlava for going forward on sourcing increased magnification Cylinderical lenses. As noted....I am interested in two (2) sets at 6X !!!

Slowly....yet progressively...we are moving towards thermal, optical and mechanical solutions. Thanx to all. I sometimes wonder if any real life engineers read any of this text ??? And what do they think ??? mmmm ??? Probobally.... " HACKS " But then again...we know just enough to be dangerous....or lucky...or both !!!

BEAM

[logsquared]

LS...Thank you !! I am considering which direction I want to go !!! I have been pining for a micro lathe for some time....and do not have one yet !!! Too many wants....not enough $$$
Let me take a few more measurements as to the required size thru hole. As to my other Eureka concept... haha...I am not sure a retainer tube locked in place with a set screw would deliver adquate pressure to the diode back facia ??? As you said....the tighter we can get the LD to Mount interface...the better !! For now....even though a more complex design....I am leaning toward the original M9 x .5 threaded tube to secure the LD in the mount well area !!

Thank you Kiyoukan and Drlava for going forward on sourcing increased magnification Cylinderical lenses. As noted....I am interested in two (2) sets at 6X !!!

Slowly....yet progressively...we are moving towards thermal, optical and mechanical solutions. Thanx to all. I sometimes wonder if any real life engineers read any of this text ??? And what do they think ??? mmmm ??? Probobally.... " HACKS " But then again...we know just enough to be dangerous....or lucky...or both !!!

BEAM

Just let me know. Its winter. This is what i do for fun. "HACKS", no, were DIYers brother! PM me if you want a lathe. No import crap here though. My dad used to work at South Bend Lathe. His garage is full (I mean full) of lathes.

[flyowynd]

LS...Thank you !! I am considering which direction I want to go !!! I have been pining for a micro lathe for some time....and do not have one yet !!! Too many wants....not enough $$$
Let me take a few more measurements as to the required size thru hole. As to my other Eureka concept... haha...I am not sure a retainer tube locked in place with a set screw would deliver adquate pressure to the diode back facia ??? As you said....the tighter we can get the LD to Mount interface...the better !! For now....even though a more complex design....I am leaning toward the original M9 x .5 threaded tube to secure the LD in the mount well area !!

Thank you Kiyoukan and Drlava for going forward on sourcing increased magnification Cylinderical lenses. As noted....I am interested in two (2) sets at 6X !!!

Slowly....yet progressively...we are moving towards thermal, optical and mechanical solutions. Thanx to all. I sometimes wonder if any real life engineers read any of this text ??? And what do they think ??? mmmm ??? Probobally.... " HACKS " But then again...we know just enough to be dangerous....or lucky...or both !!!

BEAM

Just a quick silly question, you came with an ingenious way just by saying you move the lense instead of the diode, and that a wonderfull new idea and I love it.
But then came the idea of being able to do some rotationnal adjustement of the diode, so why applying the same and press the diode in some kind of bigger cylinder (a large one for good heat transfer) and have this cylinder fixed in place by some screws.

Doing this you fist adjust the rotation of the diode, then the lens centering. It may not be the best order but at least you can do both.

And maybe another though after too much wine... do you think it's possible to press the diode from the front side instead of the back side. Doing this you may be able to gain a bit just to have the emmiter closer to the lense.

[logsquared]

I'm ready! Prices? Are the lenses included?

Still have to figure my time and materials. The telescope lenses will be included. Right now I have 8X that gives ~4.5mm X 4mm with .1 X .9mRad at .5amps. The corrected axis expands to about 5mm at .55Amps and about 5.5mm at .6amps (the highest I've went). I can provide a shorter positive lens to get .1 X 1.8mRad to match the 445 with o-like. I was planning on including 4mm FL optima collimators but can't get them to answer the phone or email? I have enough waveplates to do 8 units. So, i will include them as well. The buyer would have to furnish their own PBS cube. I have been using the laserwave cubes on my test set-up. They are doing about 92% but they have to be set at a slight angle to do that good. Also, I should mention that with a 3mm FL collimator and the telescope set to give 1.8mRad you can fit 90% on 3mm scanners. I have been testing with the thorlabs 3.1mm FL lens. They are awesome but the price is awesome too. About $90. Not sure IF anyone wants to pay that much to gain an extra 15-20% power? People have mentioned dave has 2.9mm lenses. These may be the way to go for more power on 3mm mirrors?

Here are some pictures of the optical layout.

[CDBEAM]

Flyowynd,

Yes....these designs are evolving......sur le tas.....as we go !!! Regarding the " Cylinder in Block " concept... See attached pic LDACL V 8.0. In this drawing...the LD would press fit into a 19mm OD cylinder... which in turn would slide into the main block. Correct radial position could be acheived and the cylinder then locked into place by the set bolt labeled " E".

The compromise here is a possible less efficient thermal transfer due the interface between cylinder and the main block... BUT...after more consideration...a machined fit and thin application of Artic Silver thermal paste should remove these objections. I DO prefer a very tight press fit...and this would be a way to acheive that...AND allow for radial adjustment !!! And so...we evolve in a new direction....with good ideas from all around the world !!! I remain in awe...of the power of the internet to acheive such synergy !!

Let me think about this more !!! Other opinions !!!

BEAM

Just a quick silly question, you came with an ingenious way just by saying you move the lense instead of the diode, and that a wonderfull new idea and I love it.
But then came the idea of being able to do some rotationnal adjustement of the diode, so why applying the same and press the diode in some kind of bigger cylinder (a large one for good heat transfer) and have this cylinder fixed in place by some screws.

Doing this you fist adjust the rotation of the diode, then the lens centering. It may not be the best order but at least you can do both.

And maybe another though after too much wine... do you think it's possible to press the diode from the front side instead of the back side. Doing this you may be able to gain a bit just to have the emmiter closer to the lense.

[CDBEAM]

LS...Help me out understanding your optical pathway. Looks like two (2) LD's--> Collimation lens-->Plano Concave. THEN...one beam thru a waveplate...then both beams enter into a PBS...THEN...combined beams enter into one (1) Plano Convex. Do I understand this correctly ??? Thanx !!

BEAM

[logsquared]

LS...Help me out understanding your optical pathway. Looks like two (2) LD's--> Collimation lens-->Plano Concave. THEN...one beam thru a waveplate...then both beams enter into a PBS...THEN...combined beams enter into one (1) Plano Convex. Do I understand this correctly ??? Thanx !!

BEAM

That is exactly it. The focal length of the telescope lenses makes the distance between them kind of long. So, I decided to use the space between to put the cube. The base is slotted for one of the diode holders to allow matching of focus for both diodes. The long telescope makes alignment a lot easier than if made with shorter FL lenses. The plano concave can be adjusted up-down and rotate. The plano convex and waveplate can be rotated a few degrees. All needed to get everything aligned and peaked. Then there is the x y mount that directs the beam to the cube. Takes a minute to set up but works great.

[flyowynd]

Flyowynd,

Yes....these designs are evolving......sur le tas.....as we go !!! Regarding the " Cylinder in Block " concept... See attached pic LDACL V 8.0. In this drawing...the LD would press fit into a 19mm OD cylinder... which in turn would slide into the main block. Correct radial position could be acheived and the cylinder then locked into place by the set bolt labeled " E".

The compromise here is a possible less efficient thermal transfer due the interface between cylinder and the main block... BUT...after more consideration...a machined fit and thin application of Artic Silver thermal paste should remove these objections. I DO prefer a very tight press fit...and this would be a way to acheive that...AND allow for radial adjustment !!! And so...we evolve in a new direction....with good ideas from all around the world !!! I remain in awe...of the power of the internet to acheive such synergy !!

Let me think about this more !!! Other opinions !!!

BEAM

That's sound good, but as you stated there's possible issue with heat transfer.
In my mind I was more think of some kind of holder like this one:

You will have to press the diode from the emiter side instead of the backside (maybe it's a bit too tricky).
The rotation is achieve only on +/- 20° but I'm not sure you need more if you press the diode carefully and then you can screw easy the holder in place.

Heat transfer should be ok since it will be done on a large surface.

Flyo

[CDBEAM]

Flyo, I would be reluctant to press fit against to LD output aperature facia. I reduced the length of the LD cylinder to 25.4mm for less machining issue. See attached drawings. No...for now I will stick with the LDACL V9 design and then LDC 1. Likely the most desireable geometry is one in which the LD outer side surface maintains full contact within its's host. Further...the LDC 1 has a contact interface surface of 15.29 centimeter squared. That plus Artic Silver will be sufficient with the ML series to acheive good heat flow...IMHO. Also...I need a inexpensive 3D rendering program...any suggestions....I'm still stuck in a 2D world !!!

BEAM

[logsquared]

Looking good BEAM. I have found that thermal compound likes to settle over a time. Probably ok if you use two "E" screws and tighten them down really tight. Also, I have found putting a flat on the bottom of cylinders mounted in holes helps stability a bunch(see picture). If you think about it there is really only a very small line that contacts the two parts unless the parts are exactly the same size (impossible). May I also suggest a copper "slug" at the bottom of the "E" screw? This will deform to the shape of you cylinder and not let the screws "dig in".