Conceptual design of anamorphic prisms on sinner focus ring. Pix!

Tomorrows System said:

Since I'm quite new to forum members, maybe you know someone who already have prisms and would like to test cylindrical optics ?

Click to expand...

See pic !!

lol "CDbeam" on the tail. Aren't prisms harder to align than cylindrical optics?

VisibleGreen said:

lol "CDbeam" on the tail. Aren't prisms harder to align than cylindrical optics?

Click to expand...

Prisms are easier IMO

VisibleGreen said:

lol "CDbeam" on the tail. Aren't prisms harder to align than cylindrical optics?

Click to expand...

No, Prism's are a little easier to align, but have transmission at about 92% max, where cylindericals( good ones) have transmission at about 99.3% And, prism's cannot be used on the P73 or the Oclaro.

Ya just gotta get the distance between the lenses right...+/- .5mm. No big deal !! When the lenses are in a groove/channel...I typically set one in...normally the Plano Convex ( away from the diode)...and scoot the Plano Concave back and forth with a small plastic flat stock !! While watching the beam geometry at 40' (6M) distance !! EZ !! When the geometry is the best( least divergent)...time to quit and lock it down.

A little bit back, a little bit forth....and SCHAZAM !! Bob's your Uncle
Fix the lenses with a small bit of clear epoxy....and that's it !!!

Stay tuned for more " Fun with Optics " Enjoy the pic !!

I think we have a winner ^^

Yes exactly it is looking linKe you say. Worse can happen is "S" effect when you are narrowing the beam and you do it in little bad angle.

I'm using wireless webcam. Darken the screen and at 10-15 meter distance I'm watching the beam spot moving the lenses. With bare eye really hard to spot for example the "S" effect.

Well...Mateusz (TS) has shipped some cylindericals...and I will compare them to anamorphic's. Will also compare correction to no-correction at 10M farfield.

I will use the existing proto of the EZ design for a handheld ...for the show and tell. I have made some refinements of the design, as in shrink the OD of the main body to 1.25" ( 31.75mm) and use .25" (6.35mm) bars to set the position of the two cylindericals. See attached pic V10 iteration. These "Shoulder bars" will be bolted down to the semi-circular optical platform, likely with 4-40 Allen head bolts. The lenses will be adjusted/positioned for optimal correction and secured with clear epoxy.

I will test with a standard 9mm 445 and perhaps move on to the 700mW 520( when I get one !!) Pass the popcorn !!op:...and THANK YOU Mateusz !

I hope you will receive them fast, if you need any help just write to me we will figure out something together

Great! We got something going. I look forward to the comparison both in size and performance.

Down with Umbrella said:

Great! We got something going. I look forward to the comparison both in size and performance.

Click to expand...

Update: The existing proto is too short, so, I must start over. One reason to migrate to 1 1/4" rod stock OD is that a Ally tube with 1.25" ID will now slip over the main body. Would be nice to find a source of knurled 1 1/4" ID Ally tube. black anodized at 1 1/2" long !!! I'll just go to " Tubez-R-Us " hahaha. Anyone have any thoughts ????

Down with Umb....Well yes....I have thought for some time we need a " One size fits all " platform to pave the way for optical beam improvements / experiments. Now....without the cover tube, the EZ looks, errrr, aahhhh...stark, not dressed up. A cover does look good....and without a cover it looks good also, IMNSHO !!

I suppose it depends on what one likes to look at. I also suppose some may say..." I do not want all that sh#t hang'in off the business end of any handheld I own " Well fine.....but then....some diodes will just remain " Bar Generators "

But if one can tolerate the " Baloney on the Balcony ", the extra presents of the unit which hammers the beam into some better geometry !!( Read not perfect !!)....then the EZ might be what you are looking for.:eg::eg::eg: Thanx again Mateusz ! Should be interesting !

Okay, great. Now back to the OP. . .

I can see having a tube thread over the
lens that the prism "shelf" would fit into,
which would allow the prisms to rotate
independently of the lens. Then a secs
screw to lock things down. It looked like
this.

CDBEAM777 said:

Update: The existing proto is too short, so, I must start over. One reason to migrate to 1 1/4" rod stock OD is that a Ally tube with 1.25" ID will now slip over the main body. Would be nice to find a source of knurled 1 1/4" ID Ally tube. black anodized at 1 1/2" long !!! I'll just go to " Tubez-R-Us " hahaha. Anyone have any thoughts ????

Down with Umb....Well yes....I have thought for some time we need a " One size fits all " platform to pave the way for optical beam improvements / experiments. Now....without the cover tube, the EZ looks, errrr, aahhhh...stark, not dressed up. A cover does look good....and without a cover it looks good also, IMNSHO !!

I suppose it depends on what one likes to look at. I also suppose some may say..." I do not want all that sh#t hang'in off the business end of any handheld I own " Well fine.....but then....some diodes will just remain " Bar Generators "

Click to expand...

Haha tubes-r-us, personally I don't mind if lenses are visible. In the above design(OP) the shroud is transparent to see the goodies inside but tinted to not distract from the beam.
As far as enlarging the AL round stock size, look at beam expanders, those are usually large. On some hosts I don't thing it would matter.

The Lightning Stalker said:

Okay, great. Now back to the OP. . .

I can see having a tube thread over the
lens that the prism "shelf" would fit into,
which would allow the prisms to rotate
independently of the lens. Then a secs
screw to lock things down. It looked like
this.

Click to expand...

That's not a bad design either. The only thing I can think of is the extra machining could cost more money but having more options for adjustments might be worth it or necessary. Right now a tesla build is taking up a lot of time and funds.

Well..........The central value will be to have available a somewhat universal optical add-on solution for corrective/adaptive optics.

As was noted previously,

Optics do have their limitations. (cannot get out better than what goes in )
They do result in some output power loss.
They do not deliver a perfect round beam, near or farfield.
They do have an added cost.
They add size to the HH unit.

But...It appears we are stuck with these large divergent LD emitters associated with higher PO...so....we have the tools to adapt....and at the end of the day....it all circles back to " what do you want, and what will you tolerate to achieve your minimal requirements " ??

Stay tuned... New EZ adaptor coming down the river !! See pic...I have not yet received the TS Cylinderical lenses yet...and.....

Easy eazy it is polish post

It already came out from country so I hope it will come soon. It was phisically send on 17th (on 16th it was on post) and during the weekend post doesn't work ;/

Tomorrows System said:

Easy eazy it is polish post

It already came out from country so I hope it will come soon. It was phisically send on 17th (on 16th it was on post) and during the weekend post doesn't work ;/

Click to expand...

OH...I was not whining !!! Not this time !! hahaha Thank you 4 the update !! It will be interesting to see how this comes together ? I am hopeful !....Also...added General Arrangment drawing....and....:drool:

Hows this coming? I have a host in reserve that was to be used for a multi diode project, But I could just go with the high powered 445, and use the "shelf" for corrective lenses? What shelf lenth do I need?

Here is an update on the EZ holder using the TS Cylinderical Lens optics.

Basically I have just started. I have the 1.25" (31.75mm) dia by 2.5"
(63.5mm) long Aluminum stock.

See the general arrangement drawing, V10 drawing and pics of the TS optics.
Thank you Mateusz !!

WM.....I must do some experiments to verify the separation distance demanded between all the components !!

This lens to lens separation distance will be driven by the N.A of any given diode.....SOoooo....we may have some variation from the 7A75 to the 7875 diode !!!
This variation will then determine how long your shelf needs to be ! I would predict you will need a minimum of 1.58" (40.13mm).

I gotta see how the TS lenses perform....and this will then help determine how long the shelf on your .....ah...hum...
" Three Holer "( hahaha) should be !!

I will give this some thought !! Give me a little time....been VERY busy with work lately !!!!........AND.......