DJNY
0
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 5,991
- Points
- 83
In the one corner there is my Arctic who wants to beat his rival in the other corner - the CNI 1W 449.2nm PGL-III-C. Clear the ring, LET´S GET READY TO RUMBBBBLE!!!
This is not going to be a full review, just mentioning a few aspects for comparison!!
For reviews of the laser look here:
WL Arctic: >>Dave<< >>swimminsurfer256<<
CNI PGL-III-C: >>DJNY<<
My idea is to get as much points as possible to light and rate. Unfortunately I have no LPM for these outputs at hand, but there are enough other ways to score. You are of course allowed to support me at the competition by giving me ideas about parameters to look at.
First conceptions are to test: beam+dot quality, heatsinking, built quality, divergence, safety features
I´m going to rate with points between 1-10, the one with the higher points is going to win.[/B][/SIZE]
Here are the first impressions, extraneous pics for the "FIGHT":
----------------------------------------------------------
Beam diameter
At close distance
Shot taken from ~15feet away
Dot from about 1foot away
The PGL-III-C has the thinner beam diameter than the Arctic but both aren´t good ATM.
NOTICE: I did the test two days ago and repeat it today, at this time I used full batteries for the PGL, possible that this influenced the divergence? :thinking:
Beam quality RATING: Arctic 4/10 - PGL-III-C 6/10
Heatsinking
I noticed the Arctic getting warm after 2:30min of continous run, the PGL-III-C got a bit warm after 3:30min. The PGL has a near 100% duty cycle. But IMO both are heatsinked very well for these power outputs. Air temperature was 24°C. Most of the time I run my lasers for not more than 30-40sec, exeptions are measurements.
Heatsinking RATING: Arctic 7/10 - PGL-III-C 9/10
Burning abilities
First one is the >>> burning at distance test
I´ve tested both burning matches at different distances:
VID
You have to live with the bad cam-vid quality! I achieved a age where wobbling isn´t supernatural anymore, so don´t try to stop the time how long it take to inflame the match. Oh, hope you guys enjoy looking at my back! No, I´m NOT tryin´to burn my dick there
>>>here<<<
The PGL was also able to lit a macth at 14feet (not included in the vid)
-----
Next test is the Next test is the >>> burning at close range test
I played ith two candles lay around
>>>here<<<
Burning RATING: Arctic 7/10 - PGL-III-C 8/10
-----
Safety features
Arctic: Momentary button, safety pin
PGL-III-C: Momentary button, two safety key features (pin/spin), 3mW warning light, 3sec delay before full power
I already had bad experiences with the leck of safety features at the Arctic. The batterie was empty, I changed it and while screwing down the tail cap, suddenly the 900mW came out some centimetres away from my face. Thank got I wore some safety glasses.
Activating the PGL-III-C is laborious, but there is a lot less risk of an accident.
Saftey features RATING: Arctic 2/10 - PGL-III-C 8/10
This is not going to be a full review, just mentioning a few aspects for comparison!!
For reviews of the laser look here:
WL Arctic: >>Dave<< >>swimminsurfer256<<
CNI PGL-III-C: >>DJNY<<
My idea is to get as much points as possible to light and rate. Unfortunately I have no LPM for these outputs at hand, but there are enough other ways to score. You are of course allowed to support me at the competition by giving me ideas about parameters to look at.
First conceptions are to test: beam+dot quality, heatsinking, built quality, divergence, safety features
I´m going to rate with points between 1-10, the one with the higher points is going to win.[/B][/SIZE]
Here are the first impressions, extraneous pics for the "FIGHT":
----------------------------------------------------------
Beam diameter
At close distance
Shot taken from ~15feet away
Dot from about 1foot away
The PGL-III-C has the thinner beam diameter than the Arctic but both aren´t good ATM.
NOTICE: I did the test two days ago and repeat it today, at this time I used full batteries for the PGL, possible that this influenced the divergence? :thinking:
Beam quality RATING: Arctic 4/10 - PGL-III-C 6/10
Heatsinking
I noticed the Arctic getting warm after 2:30min of continous run, the PGL-III-C got a bit warm after 3:30min. The PGL has a near 100% duty cycle. But IMO both are heatsinked very well for these power outputs. Air temperature was 24°C. Most of the time I run my lasers for not more than 30-40sec, exeptions are measurements.
Heatsinking RATING: Arctic 7/10 - PGL-III-C 9/10
Burning abilities
First one is the >>> burning at distance test
I´ve tested both burning matches at different distances:
VID
You have to live with the bad cam-vid quality! I achieved a age where wobbling isn´t supernatural anymore, so don´t try to stop the time how long it take to inflame the match. Oh, hope you guys enjoy looking at my back! No, I´m NOT tryin´to burn my dick there
>>>here<<<
The PGL was also able to lit a macth at 14feet (not included in the vid)
-----
Next test is the Next test is the >>> burning at close range test
I played ith two candles lay around
>>>here<<<
Burning RATING: Arctic 7/10 - PGL-III-C 8/10
-----
Safety features
Arctic: Momentary button, safety pin
PGL-III-C: Momentary button, two safety key features (pin/spin), 3mW warning light, 3sec delay before full power
I already had bad experiences with the leck of safety features at the Arctic. The batterie was empty, I changed it and while screwing down the tail cap, suddenly the 900mW came out some centimetres away from my face. Thank got I wore some safety glasses.
Activating the PGL-III-C is laborious, but there is a lot less risk of an accident.
Saftey features RATING: Arctic 2/10 - PGL-III-C 8/10
Last edited: