Wicked Evo Pro 130mW averages 121.6mW - Should I be dissappointed?

Eudaimonium said:

Now, buying a laser for $180 and after you purchased it, it comes down to $50, is not exactly right, but then again, can we really expect 130mW + overspec unit for $50?

Click to expand...

SpeedVision said:

I could be wrong, but the new, cheap, E2's only go up to 100mW and the E3's (different host) are availble up to 200mW. I bought the Evo Pro 130mW because I was getting a superior laser with CNI internals and an mRad of 1.2 vs 1.5. All the cheap E2's and E3's are mRad of 1.5.

If I bought one of the cheap 50 buck versions we wouldn't be having this conversation. Frankly, maybe that's what I got since they can put whatever sticker on it they please, but I'd have to read up on how to measure mRad to truly verify...

Wow, what if I paid 180 for an overspec 50 buck E2 with a pro sticker on it.:wtf:

Click to expand...

Assainator75 said:

To be honest, when I measured the divergence on my own evo pro and found that it was actually 1.5mRad. However, this isn't 'terrible', but does put some limitations on distance burning without a beam expander. (ex. I can only pop a sharpied balloon at 10 ft)

The previously listed 1.2mRad on WL's site was a little optimistic since they probably do not do a QC check on the divergence. Some do hit 1.2mRad, but many do not and tend to be around 1.5mRad in general. That's probably the reason they changed the numbers to "1.5mRad".

Going back to your 'underspec' concern, might I ask, was the graph on the WL graph zeroed out properly? There should be "min" power on the graph provided.
Why do I ask?
Because my evo pro's chart showed that WL did not zero the LPM and the power started "idled" at negative 4mW. Quite possibly some of the ~ 150mW graphs may be the cause of having their tests starting above the 0mW line and giving a wrong measurement.
If it started negative, that may be the cause of the graph displaying a lower output than it should be.

Click to expand...