Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Help understanding mRad

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    veenwouden
    Posts
    2,580

    Default

    Nice to know but its better to be a little reserved when promoting that my products are more bright then others. If people compare and don,t experiance the 4x brightness while promoting them like and i have to deal with the complaints and the headache . So i prefer to be a little on the safe side. But one thing is for sure lower divergence helps allot to get a higher brightness


    Interested in 6-12W RGB projectors with low divergence? Contact me by PM!

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,513

    Default

    I have always resented Kavant's use of 1/2 angle divergence. They are about the only manufacturer I have come across that does this. This is a big deal. A beam that is twice as tight is much harder to manufacture and when equally powerful will be much brighter. Furthermore, a tighter beam allows a smaller beam at the scanner mirrors, small mirrors and therefore faster scanning. Whenever possible compare lasers using a "beam product". Multiply the exit diameter by the divergence. The smaller this # the better the beam.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    With the Koalas
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Been meaning to say Thx Edison for pointing that out. I had noticed the Kvant divergence numbers and had no idea about the 1/2 divergence. Thought they were just good numbers. I guess its a bit of marketing in play, and is good to know.

    Eric are you saying use straight multiplication? e.g. 3mm x 0.7 divergence (1/2 angle)
    Wouldn't this still give a better result that using the full divergence? In this case 3 x 1.4
    I'm clearly misunderstanding your calculation. I'm assuming the exit diameter to be beam size of the out put (3mm in my example used above).

    Can you please elaborate on what you mean.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,513

    Default

    The beam product that I suggest is the product of the exit beam diameter x the divergence and the divergence should always be according to the same standard. So, if you are comparing 1/2 angle divergence then always use 1/2 angle divergence. If you are using full angle divergence (the much more common standard...I mean who the hell looks at 2 cm diameter far field spot on a screen and says "that's a great 1 cm diameter half of the spot") then always use the full angle specification. For Kavant, just double their divergence spec and then compare it to the rest of the world.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    With the Koalas
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Ahh gotcha. .

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    veenwouden
    Posts
    2,580

    Default

    Been meaning to say Thx Edison for pointing that out. I had noticed the Kvant divergence numbers and had no idea about the 1/2 divergence. Thought they were just good numbers. I guess its a bit of marketing in play, and is good to know.

    Yep its a marketing thing, most people look at the numbers and say oh great its only 0.8mrd. Imagine when a guy bought it and someone points it out afterworths, i,m sure he feels screwed......

    Look at the specs of a new car, it says that its super efficient when it comes to miles to the gallon. Do the math when you have used a full tank of petrol after normal usage.........
    Last edited by edison; 09-17-2014 at 03:01.


    Interested in 6-12W RGB projectors with low divergence? Contact me by PM!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •