- Joined
- Mar 24, 2016
- Messages
- 321
- Points
- 0
Re: FEELER: XPL Lasers (RG:Y, RB:M, high-power 532s, etc)
I want a 1.5 532nm
I want a 1.5 532nm
LPF Donation via Stripe | LPF Donation - Other Methods
Links below open in new window
ArcticMyst Security by Avery
CANCELED FEELER: XPL Lasers (LPF 15% discount instead)
- Thread starter Sta
- Start date
Re: FEELER: XPL Lasers (RG:Y, RB:M, high-power 532s, etc)
@Alien, please do not quote the initial post.
Added!
@Alien, please do not quote the initial post.
Added!
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2016
- Messages
- 321
- Points
- 0
Re: FEELER: XPL Lasers (RG:Y, RB:M, high-power 532s, etc)
Sta where can I find a video of the 1.5W 532nm?
Sta where can I find a video of the 1.5W 532nm?
Re: FEELER: XPL Lasers (RG:Y, RB:M, high-power 532s, etc)
http://laserpointerforums.com/f55/f...-high-power-532s-etc-97779-4.html#post1429391
http://laserpointerforums.com/f55/f...-high-power-532s-etc-97779-4.html#post1429391
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2016
- Messages
- 321
- Points
- 0
Re: FEELER: XPL Lasers (RG:Y, RB:M, high-power 532s, etc)
Green lasers rock you are out of your mind... That is not even close to as bright as my 520nm
Green lasers rock you are out of your mind... That is not even close to as bright as my 520nm
Re: FEELER: XPL Lasers (RG:Y, RB:M, high-power 532s, etc)
Yoshi, do you know that that laser is being shined against a black surface? And black surfaces absorb light. So you don't see much of the reflection. Also, mathematically, it HAS to be brighter. 1.75W of 532nm > 1.4W of 520nm. Sorry buddy.
Yoshi, do you know that that laser is being shined against a black surface? And black surfaces absorb light. So you don't see much of the reflection. Also, mathematically, it HAS to be brighter. 1.75W of 532nm > 1.4W of 520nm. Sorry buddy.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2015
- Messages
- 1,628
- Points
- 113
Re: FEELER: XPL Lasers (RG:Y, RB:M, high-power 532s, etc)
Sta and GLR are right, Yoshi. 1.5W of 532nm would be brighter than basically any properly driven and public accessable 520nm diode in existance.
Sta and GLR are right, Yoshi. 1.5W of 532nm would be brighter than basically any properly driven and public accessable 520nm diode in existance.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2016
- Messages
- 321
- Points
- 0
Re: FEELER: XPL Lasers (RG:Y, RB:M, high-power 532s, etc)
Ok let's see a video where it's not being shined at black.. I posed a video of mine but I'm yet to see a 532.. Except this one being shined at black
Ok let's see a video where it's not being shined at black.. I posed a video of mine but I'm yet to see a 532.. Except this one being shined at black
Re: FEELER: XPL Lasers (RG:Y, RB:M, high-power 532s, etc)
Do you really need proof that 1.8 > 1.4?
If you insist, I'll ask Peng for a video, but I don't feel it's necessary at this time.
Do you really need proof that 1.8 > 1.4?
If you insist, I'll ask Peng for a video, but I don't feel it's necessary at this time.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2016
- Messages
- 321
- Points
- 0
Re: FEELER: XPL Lasers (RG:Y, RB:M, high-power 532s, etc)
Yeah i do lol... It's infared through a Crystal... It's not as simple as punching it into a laser brightness calculator when we are talking real diode vs a dpss
Yeah i do lol... It's infared through a Crystal... It's not as simple as punching it into a laser brightness calculator when we are talking real diode vs a dpss
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2015
- Messages
- 1,628
- Points
- 113
Re: FEELER: XPL Lasers (RG:Y, RB:M, high-power 532s, etc)
Just because it's method of producing the wavelength is DPSS, doesn't mean it's brightness/output power is irrelevant. And it's a bit more complicated than "infared through a Cystal"...
Furthermore, it is just as simple as punching it into a laser brightness calculator. That's the whole point of the laser brightness calculator.
Relative Laser Beam Brightness Calculator: (532nm 1750mw) vs. (520nm 1400mw)
Just because it's method of producing the wavelength is DPSS, doesn't mean it's brightness/output power is irrelevant. And it's a bit more complicated than "infared through a Cystal"...
Furthermore, it is just as simple as punching it into a laser brightness calculator. That's the whole point of the laser brightness calculator.
Relative Laser Beam Brightness Calculator: (532nm 1750mw) vs. (520nm 1400mw)
Last edited:
Re: FEELER: XPL Lasers (RG:Y, RB:M, high-power 532s, etc)
Yoshi, I'm not sure you understand what DPSS is. We do not ever measure input power with lasers. What is measured is the output. With DPSS, the infrared diode is the input. That is going to be more powerful than the actual output, which is 532nm green. However, there is no difference whatsoever between DPSS green photons and green photons generated by a hypothetical 532nm diode. If anything, the 532nm will be brighter than a 520 of the same power because of (1) being closer to the center of our vision and (2) having a tighter beam.
Yoshi, I'm not sure you understand what DPSS is. We do not ever measure input power with lasers. What is measured is the output. With DPSS, the infrared diode is the input. That is going to be more powerful than the actual output, which is 532nm green. However, there is no difference whatsoever between DPSS green photons and green photons generated by a hypothetical 532nm diode. If anything, the 532nm will be brighter than a 520 of the same power because of (1) being closer to the center of our vision and (2) having a tighter beam.
diachi
0
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,700
- Points
- 113
Re: FEELER: XPL Lasers (RG:Y, RB:M, high-power 532s, etc)
A video doesn't prove anything unless you're using the same camera with the same settings in the same room with the same lighting conditions and both lasers have the same beam specs.
What? The process doesn't have anything to do with it - we're measuring output power not input. The 532 has higher output, our eyes are more sensitive to it and it should have a tighter beam. It's going to be brighter - although not necessarily all that noticeably seeing as they're both already so stupidly bright.
A video doesn't prove anything unless you're using the same camera with the same settings in the same room with the same lighting conditions and both lasers have the same beam specs.
What? The process doesn't have anything to do with it - we're measuring output power not input. The 532 has higher output, our eyes are more sensitive to it and it should have a tighter beam. It's going to be brighter - although not necessarily all that noticeably seeing as they're both already so stupidly bright.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2016
- Messages
- 321
- Points
- 0
Re: FEELER: XPL Lasers (RG:Y, RB:M, high-power 532s, etc)
I know the laser brightness calculator is wack.. I've used it quite often and it Dosent add up. According to that my 520 should be almost twice as bright as my 7 watt yet they are practically the same..
I know the laser brightness calculator is wack.. I've used it quite often and it Dosent add up. According to that my 520 should be almost twice as bright as my 7 watt yet they are practically the same..
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2016
- Messages
- 321
- Points
- 0
Re: FEELER: XPL Lasers (RG:Y, RB:M, high-power 532s, etc)
Take it back... It says my 7watt is only 34% as bright as my 520nm.... I forgot to switch it to dot..
Take it back... It says my 7watt is only 34% as bright as my 520nm.... I forgot to switch it to dot..
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2015
- Messages
- 1,628
- Points
- 113
Re: FEELER: XPL Lasers (RG:Y, RB:M, high-power 532s, etc)
That's true, it may not always seem accurate as I believe it's all theoretical. It's mathematically correct, but using it for applicational purposes can be shifty. It also depends on many other factors, for example your environment is probably one of the biggest ones, output accuracy (You might not know if your diode is exactly 1.4W), battery level etc etc
For the calculator to be completely correct it would need to be done in a lab style environment, where the air is purified so that Raleigh Scattering is in sync with the brightness calculations and it's default programmed Raleigh Scattering density/levels.
That's true, it may not always seem accurate as I believe it's all theoretical. It's mathematically correct, but using it for applicational purposes can be shifty. It also depends on many other factors, for example your environment is probably one of the biggest ones, output accuracy (You might not know if your diode is exactly 1.4W), battery level etc etc
For the calculator to be completely correct it would need to be done in a lab style environment, where the air is purified so that Raleigh Scattering is in sync with the brightness calculations and it's default programmed Raleigh Scattering density/levels.
