Green laser that burns better than a dilda?

I'm using the dilda for a while now (except for the last two weeks cause I didn't took it with me) and it's burning very nice.
I've read in the red lasers section that because of the fact its focusable it burns better than a 200mw green.

So how many mw of green (unfocussed) do I need to get a better burner than the dx200 red?
Will for example an RPL-260 be a better burner or do I need a 300mw or even higher?
Anyone who has compared the burning capabilities of the dilda with any 200+ mw green?

Well, green has a shorter wavelength, which means it has a higher energy density. The reason your Phallic Laser can burn so well is because when focused, the beam diameter is smaller, which means higher density. But you already knew that...
So, lets say your Dilda is exactly 200mW and is focused to a diameter of 0.025mm.
Now you also have a green laser that is the exact power and is also focused to 0.025mm.
The green will burn better because it is green. But the difference will hardly be noticeable.
This same concept is the reason that a 30mW blu-ray can light a match.
Shorter wavelength=higher energy density.
Shorter wavelength lasers are also capable of being focused to smaller points, which again is why blu-ray lasers can be used to write much more data on a disc than a red laser can.

So it's not really that a Dilda burns better, it just that it has an advantage over other lasers because it can be focused.
As far as burning goes, an Aires 100 with an X10DR would kick a Dilda's ass.
And a 100mW focusable blu-ray would be superior to the Aires.

I hope it all makes sense.

So to answer your question, It depends a lot on whether or not it can be focused.

If you REALLY want burning power, build yourself a 0.5-1W 808.

The DX 150mW Focusable Batonstyle laser burns better than the dilda. that means the 200mW version also burns better, I'm not sure about the 100mW version.

I don't know if you're right when you say "shorter wave = higher energy density", I mean, each photon has more energy, but to achieve the same amount of energy you need less photons, so really energy density doesn't depend on wavelength.It just depends on the diameter of the dot (or the surface, energy density=total energy/surface)

So I would guess that shorter waves are better for burning just because they can be focused to a smaller spot.And maybe because of the different absorbance rates.Apparently violet is being absorbed better overall by most materials than red.
With 808nm it's probably gonna suck the most, because of long wave and multimode emitters , but still, there's a LOT more power available.You can even get a 2Wor a 4W for pretty cheap compared to other laser products.You should probably be able to build a 4W handheld with half of the cost of the cheapest RPL, and how many people have that? : Of course 808nm goggles cost as much as the build.....

as far as things absorbing different colors..
my red laser would not burn my skin without a sharpie, but my green laser would burn my skin even without a sharpie.

my red laser would shine the light through my hand, and my green laser no light would come through my hand.

Switch:
Yes, it's not exactly higher energy density, it was just the simplest way I could describe it. Basically the concept is shorter wavelength is better for burning.

mikeeey said:

as far as things absorbing different colors..
my red laser would not burn my skin without a sharpie, but my green laser would burn my skin even without a sharpie.

my red laser would shine the light through my hand, and  my green laser no light would come through my hand.

Click to expand...

Yea, that probably has everything to do with the color of your skin.A good part of red is reflected, andther good part is passed through, and only a little is absorbed.With green, alot more is absorbed.Depends on your skin tone too.But I'm talking about apparently spectrally flat objects, like black objects.I may appear black to the eye, but might absorb one wavelength a little better than the other.

Yes, it's not exactly higher energy density, it was just the simplest way I could describe it. Basically the concept is shorter wavelength is better for burning.

Click to expand...

Yea but it's all because of focusing to a smaller spot thus having higher power density.I mean 200mW of red on a 0.025mm diameter round dot will burn the same as a 200mW green on a 0.025mm diameter round dot (providing absorbance is the same for both).Green won't burn better just because it's green.

Green will burn better, just as blu ray will because of its really low wavelength.

Also, I think the SK-Y 1 watt IR lasers float around 250-300 USD, you should check them out.

Switch said:

[quote author=mikeeey link=1218673647/0#4 date=1218827296]as far as things absorbing different colors..
my red laser would not burn my skin without a sharpie, but my green laser would burn my skin even without a sharpie.

my red laser would shine the light through my hand, and  my green laser no light would come through my hand.

Click to expand...

Yea, that probably has everything to do with the color of your skin.A good part of red is reflected, andther good part is passed through, and only a little is absorbed.With green, alot more is absorbed.Depends on your skin tone too.But I'm talking about apparently spectrally flat objects, like black objects.I may appear black to the eye, but might absorb one wavelength a little better than the other.

Yes, it's not exactly higher energy density, it was just the simplest way I could describe it. Basically the concept is shorter wavelength is better for burning.

Click to expand...

yeah im talking about light skin, not dark. dark skin will always burn with a red or green (lol there goes the hitler again). so if a good amount of green is absorbed then why is it that you cant see the light pass through your hand on the other side as you can see with a red?

Yea but it's all because of focusing to a smaller spot thus having higher power density.I mean 200mW of red on a 0.025mm diameter round dot will burn the same as a 200mW green on a 0.025mm diameter round dot (providing absorbance is the same for both).Green won't burn better just because it's green.

Click to expand...

That's it, basically. The color doesnt matter, as long as you can focus it to a small enough area.

Green DPSS lasers are optically better than red diode based lasers. This has little to do with the actual color, but with the solid state laser having better performance in terms of divergence/beamsize.

Blu-ray shouldn't burn any better than red does, apart from the fact that some materials are more absorbing at the high end of the spectrum.

RA_pierce said:

Switch:
Yes, it's not exactly higher energy density, it was just the simplest way I could describe it. Basically the concept is [highlight]shorter wavelength is better for burning[/highlight].

Click to expand...

Hi to all.
I have seen that a short waveleight is more assorb from my skin, true. but...
If this true, why for the laser cutting of metals are used the 1064nm lasers? They have a higher waveleight...
Why the metal cutting machines don't use (for example) the green beam (for a shorter waveleight)? It's DPSS, the same technology like YAG (1064nm).
Other example: The waveleight of a CO2 laser is exactly 10640nm, but it is able tu burn all kind of colour, like also white and transparent (glass, plexiglass).

I'm guessing because IR lasers are cheaper , more enegy efficient , and available in much higher powers.No point in using 20W of green when you can use ~50-60W of 1064nm. :-/

A CO[sub]2[/sub] laser's beam is so far into the IR part of the spectrum it reacts nothing like visible colours.

gregorio87 said:

Hi to all.
I have seen that a short waveleight is more assorb from my skin, true. but...
If this true, why for the laser cutting of metals are used the 1064nm lasers? They have a higher waveleight...
Why the metal cutting machines don't use (for example) the green beam (for a shorter waveleight)? It's DPSS, the same technology like YAG (1064nm).
Other example: The waveleight of a CO2 laser is exactly 10640nm, but it is able tu burn all kind of colour, like also white and transparent (glass, plexiglass).

Click to expand...

It's because visible lasers are not absorbed as well by a lot of materials. CO2 lasers are available in much higher powers and are more efficient than visible light lasers. Also, the wavelength is absorbed much better than visible light, so it is ideal for cutting hard materials or things that would reflect visible light. Every part of the electromagnetic spectrum has it's own unique properties.