reputable member with an lpm to test 405-g2 lens output

Any well established member here with a LPM wanna do me a favor and test the 405-g2 lens with my spacer with small exit aperture. the spacer is made with a hollow cavity to make room for the domed side of the lens but comes to a 3.5mm hole which is smaller than the hole of the lens nut.
I wanted someone to test the effects of using such a spacer powerwise. as in, how much do i lose if i use that spacer vs a spacer that has a hole the same size of the lens nut. I will mail you the lens and paypal you to mail it back...or let you keep it for 45 bucks if you like it PM me if you got a LPM thanks!

Where are you located? That would be important, I'm probably an ocean away.

I'm in Southern California. I have an LPM (or so ) around here.

Peace,
dave

thats awesome dave, im in the bay area so that makes things perfect. i'll pm you.

daguin said:

I'm in Southern California. I have an LPM (or so ) around here.

Peace,
dave

Click to expand...

dave is definitely somebody you don't want to trust. ignore all his positive rep and his super moderator status and the fact that i continue to business with him.


edit. i just realized this is the internet and you might not know i was kidding. Dave is very trust worthy.

michael.

you dont gotta tell me twice. i already shipped out the lens to him and anxiously waiting for results. thanks a bunch Dave!

chipdouglas said:

dave is definitely somebody you don't want to trust. ignore all his positive rep and his super moderator status and the fact that i continue to business with him.


edit. i just realized this is the internet and you might not know i was kidding. Dave is very trust worthy.

michael.

Click to expand...

Just a heads up... The G2 lens have been tested and have been found to be within 1-2% less efficient then the G1 lens. I think that was tested with a 405nm laser, so you may have different results with a 445nm laser.

-Adrian

thanks for the heads up but I aware of the test results. I specifically wanted to see the power difference of using my custom spacer which has an exit aperture of 3.5mm. basically i wanna know how much im losing by doing this. I did the spacer this way in an attempt to make a cleaner, rounder dot.

bobhaha said:

Just a heads up... The G2 lens have been tested and have been found to be within 1-2% less efficient then the G1 lens. I think that was tested with a 405nm laser, so you may have different results with a 445nm laser.

-Adrian

Click to expand...

did it work?

before sending the lens to dave I tested it with a 405 and the dot is clean with almost no splash. when looking through my safety googles i could see the dot is slightly oval. with 445 I get a tighter geam profile but the fast axis is still prominent although i get every lens is unique because i get a weird square-ish splash on the lower right corner of the dot when focused to infinity... very strange and only happens with 445.

jakeGT said:

did it work?

Click to expand...

yep, I've had multiple g-1's, that have ALL been different in power, splash, and the way the lens looks/acts

so jake still interested in testing one of these suckers out as well? if you/anyone else is interested in this, click on the link in my sig for a giveaway

yep, i would like to test one out!

bobhaha said:

Just a heads up... The G2 lens have been tested and have been found to be within 1-2% less efficient then the G1 lens. I think that was tested with a 405nm laser, so you may have different results with a 445nm laser.

-Adrian

Click to expand...

I'll post some data that will show the G2 is NOT less efficient than the G1 (original G1)
We can do some statistical look at it- like postings of A130 diodes vs A140 diodes and clearly the A140 does have a higher power trend.

The G2 has a multi-layer A coating. The G1 was a single layer of Magnesium Fluoride, MgF2. The reflective reduction of A vs MGF2 is about 1% per surface better! This is all on paper however. Jay's tests at 405nm for the G2 vs G1 tests were initial evaluations from what he and I discussed. besides it's hard to measure a 2% +/- power rating at 500mW with a laserbee, Coherent, or my $2500 Ophir Vega meter- it's just outside of the meter's repeatability and accuracy ranges. experimental error alone could account for +/- 2%. I think Jay now gets an A coating, so really it's not even the same as the original G1.

The G"X" designation, and all XXXnm- G"X" designations for lenses and assorted accessories (like housings) were conceived here at LASER66.com
The X=1, and 2 in the G"X" nomenclature just designate the manufacturer.

Yes, I'm not sure there is a post of 445nm comparison tests of G2 vs G1. The original tests were at b405nm, the design wavelength for the 405-G series of lenses.

I hope to also post some reflective data showing coating losses, but the proof is always in the pudding, and tests, even with measurable results may not show all that is needed. The lenses work well for some at 445nm , those not hoping for a pencil beam- that's why there are cylinders.

I'n mt tests with Stevies lens I had a 50mW higher max then the g-1, using a140 445

UPDATE
JakeGT found my 405-g2 lens to be EQUAL with 405 blu-rays to the 405-g1 BUT the g2's are MORE efficient than the g1's with 445.

I just ordered a laserbee IX 2.1W so i will do some testing myself. to compare. check out the link in my sig for my sales thread for the 405-g2's!!

on another note, thanks will for the chat, i am looking forward to some of you future products!