Aluminum 6082 Host - True Laser Saber Model 70W

[TrueLaserSaber]

Hi, I would like to offer an aluminum host made of 6082 alloy for great thermal conductivity, that can be used to make 70.000 mW portable/pocket laser using the NUBM35 and 2 Lipo Batteries.

Full Free instructions as well as purchasing link here:
Truelasersaber.com

You can see some cool tests here:

Please, feel free to ask if you have any question.

Alex

 

[Unown (WILD)]

Poor stretch armstrong lol

 

[TrueLaserSaber]

Glad that you like it. My fingers took a big gamble in order to make that shot.

 

[RedCowboy]

How about a zoom attachment made from a concave then sliding convex ?
I did some crude testing and found it's possible to move the 30cm footprint out to 5 meters, I expect better is possible but it will come down to how big your convex is.

https://laserpointerforums.com/threads/multiple-beams.106896/post-1606253

 

[thanhtung]

very nice job bro! )

 

[TrueLaserSaber]

Thanks Thanh! Took a lot of time to design and develop

 

[TrueLaserSaber]

How about a zoom attachment made from a concave then sliding convex ?
I did some crude testing and found it's possible to move the 30cm footprint out to 5 meters, I expect better is possible but it will come down to how big your convex is.

https://laserpointerforums.com/threads/multiple-beams.106896/post-1606

Hi RedCowboy,

Yes, exactly, It comes down to the size of the convex like you said.
I bought 8 convex and 4 convex lenses of different magnification powers and after running all possible combinations came to the conclusion that there is no significant improvement of adding a beam expander to a numb35. Especially having into account that my design was concentrating mainly on keeping the design as small as possible. Additionally, between 15%-25% of the total output is lost during transmissions and reflections of both lenses (tested with 50W optical power meter)

The divergence of the Nubm35 compared to similar product like the Nubm31/36A is 3 times better (according to the manufacturer - 0.16 vs 0.45). From my measurements I ensure you that this is true.
Not to mention that both arrays mentioned above are already way better than the PLPM4L or the Nubm44 for example in terms of divergence and diode alignment.

So for my personal taste and after running all the tests, the benefit of not using any attachment outweigh the disadvantage.
Even if your personal preference is to be able to burn things at a distance instead of keeping the size small, I would still suggest not adding any beam expander tot Nubm35. If you don't care about size, just buy 125W Nubm37 and attach to it as big of a beam expander as you want. It will still burn further away than a nubm35 with the same expander.

One thing that I would definitely recommend as un attachment is to running the beam through some sort of spatial filter. There are a lot of internal reflections and scattered light that nubm35 produces. A spatial filtering of some sort works like a charm. The dimension of the beam is 18x12mm. I have designed a spatial filter that I 3D printed from black PLA to absorbe the scattered light with an internal hole of 20mm x 14mm and separated it 36 mm from the Nubm35. Those are the optimal dimensions from my tests and It works like a charm.

I attach few 3D drawings for the spatial filter and you can see the difference of using it vs not using it in the minute 0:32 and 4:16 of the following video:

 

[RedCowboy]

Yes I too like lens flare hiders and incorporate them into builds, usually made from black cardstock, also I like your concept.
Here's one that I enclosed in an aluminum box and shrouded with a tube, it's not pretty but it blocks most of that lens flare, it's a nubm35 that only uses the center 8 for a neat little footprint.




I did make a beam expander for one of my nubm35 and it works for short range, but like you say size is a factor.

I have a collection of beam expanders and just scored this Thorlabs 10X at auction.




The problem with these arrays is the aggressive divergence of each emitters fast axis, but the nubb13 with it's 4 diode arrays could at least be knife edged putting all the 4 beam clusters of several arrays onto the footprint of just 1 albeit at only a short useful distance of a few meters.

The right thing to do would be to correct each beams output with cylindrical lenses and then knife edge several rows and columns of beams to make a well aligned array that could be condensed via. telescopic reduction or for far field use focused with a beam expander.

You could use the Sharp 405nm laser diode good for close to 2W each and skip the c-lens correction as the divergence is pretty good for a multi mode laser diode, simply build your own array by knife edging rows and columns all aligned to a far field point.

A 4 x 8 would be good for for 64W - losses but the beam bundle would be much better over distance and more tightly packed.

Anyway the nubb13 will have beams with footprint like this IIII 4 vertical bars that become 4 long horizontal bars, so knife edging the outputs from several to converge at a max working distance will be an improvement.

 

[TrueLaserSaber]

Congratulations for scoring that Beam expander beauty from Thorlabs

Nubb13 is a very interesting diode. Would like to see if you are able to knife edge is successfully, since the distance between the individual laser diodes is even tinier compared to nubm35/31. Must be challenging.

In terms of beam expander for the Nubm35, I think the optimal is to simply use a lower power convex lens (0.25 , 0.5 , or 1 diopter), extracted from glasses if his goal is to burn things at close to medium distance:

It has the following advantages VS a beam expander:
1. The overall size of the built is basically the same (the beam expander ads another at least 30mm in length and probably increases the diameter too )
2. Less losses due to reflections and refractions, since the beam crosses only one lens, and not two (the glasses should not have UV coating).
3. The shape of the beam is kept the same size (instead of expanded) near the laser diode.
4. Much cheaper and more available than beam expanders.

Not trying to argue. Simply adding another perspective to this topic.
Beam expanders are very interesting to play with for sure!

 

[RedCowboy]

If knife edging the nubb13 I would stack the 4 beam clusters and align them to all overlap at the max burning distance.

The 4 beams just like the 2 rows of 7 beams from your nubm35 are smaller to start, also they grow wider with distance, this way it's possible to knife edge the 4 beam outputs close together and align so they all overlap at the max working distance and as they merge together this makes a much more fun burner over a better range. ( For safe entertainment or experimentation only ! )



This nubm35 has a dead chip, but you can see the size and shape of the beams, they will become two blocks of much wider bars over distance.
With the small blocks of 4 they will stack just like they look and terminate into the footprint of just one units longer bars

IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII