Meter tests of lenses, goggles, and soon more!

Woohoo, post #1000. I had to make this one a little better than my usual shenanigans

EDIT:

These tests were done with the "stock" aixiz acrylic lens. I opened up the back of the two acrylics and re-did the test, see post #13

I got my Kenometer last week, and I have since been making lots of graphs of different lasers and such. I decided to do some tests on different lenses for blu-ray diodes and for red diodes. I currently have in my possession the aixiz 405 glass lenses, the aixiz acrylic, and the aixiz $5 glass lens which I use for red's.

I use my DMM for data logging on my Kenometer. Unfortunatley, the software that the DMM uses wasn't meant for lasers, so it doesn't show an average or peak value. I tried copying all the data into an excel file, but the program graphs time and voltage in the same column, so there's no easy way to find the average, it'd have to be done manually. Since the diodes I'm testing don't vary much, it shouldn't be an issue.

The laser I tested these with is my "mystery PHR" in Ehgmus host. I call it that, because the module came with the green RPL style laser that I bought, and it was already soldered to the rkcstr driver. I didn't want to take the diode off to check the current, so I just threw it in the host, and fired it up.

Here's the video of this laser with no lens:



It averages about 210mW with no lens. This is with fully charged batteries. I turned the laser off for 5 minutes in between each video. I

Here's a video of the same laser with the first aixiz 405 glass lens:



After leaving the laser off for 5 minutes, here's the first aixiz acrylic lens:



After leaving the laser off for another 5 minutes, here's the test with a DIFFERENT aixiz 405 glass lens:



After leaving the laser off for another 5 minutes, here's the test with a DIFFERENT aixiz acrylic lens:



The tests in the videos above were not graphed, because the front LED display cannot be used when graphing. I did graph 2 more tests with each type of lens about a week ago, here they are:
(NOTE: The graph's all get auto scaled, so pay attention to the values on the vertical axis)

CLICK TO ENLARGE

CLICK TO ENLARGE

CLICK TO ENLARGE

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Let's now use the 4 sets of data for each lens to get the average increase of the aixiz 405 glass lens vs. the aixiz acrylic lens:

(NOTE: when using the DMM for data logging, it graphs with a 0.1mW resolution, vs. a 1mW resolution on the LED display as seen in the videos. It's a little harder to tell which power it averages at on the graphs, so just made a close estimate using the values in the table.)

(NOTE: The graphs were done about a week before these videos, I'm not sure what caused the decrease in values from the video. Taking this into account, I decided to make two different averages with two values each instead of one average with 4 values)

Values from the videos:

Aixiz acrylic lens values (mW): 126, 136 Average = 131
Aixiz 405 glass lens values (mW): 160, 159. Average = 159.5

I used the following equation to calculate percentage increase:

increasing FROM acrylic TO glass would be absolute value of (acrylic - glass)/(acrylic) = (131-159.5)/(131) = .2175 = 21.75% increase over aixiz acrylic.

Values from the graphs:

Aixiz 405 glass lens values (mW): 170.5, 168.5 Average = 169.5
Aixiz acrylic lens values (mW): 139.8, 135.3 Average = 137.55

Using the same equation from above, the percentage increase with using the aixiz 405 glass lens vs. the aixiz acrylic lens is 23.23% increase.

I quickly tried this test with my other PHR, and I noticed power increases of 19-21% from those tests, but I didn't have time to take videos or graphs of those tests.

IMO, the aixiz 405 glass lens is a great buy. You get increased power output, and a nice clean looking dot. Many members prefer the 405-G-1 lens, which is a very nice lens also. However, I'm not a fan of the "wings" around the dot that the 405-G-1 lens produces. I also think that a cleaner dot would be better for burning.

Anyway, I had fun doing this little experiment. If you see anything that I overlooked in the tests, or something that should have been done differently, please let me know.

I also tested my OEM certified gogles as well as those cheap focalprice goggles, but I'm too tired to post them now. You'll probably see those graphs within the next couple days. I did notice that the Focalprice goggles brought this same laser down to about 0.8mW, and the OEM certified goggles brought this laser down to about 0.1mW. I only did graphs of those, as videos take much longer for me. I'll try to post those graphs within the next couple days.

I'm also going to buy some goggles from Glenn and graph those as well, not that they need to be graphed, I trust Glenn I just like graphing things.

Again, if you find something that I should have done differently in these tests, let me know.

Re: Meter tests of lenses, goggles, and more!

AWESOME INFO!! btw we turned vet on the same day yay!!

Hey I'll be getting a bunch of new lens made, I'll let you know if I will give it the go ahead... if so, you can test it out, and show your results.. assuming I don't get a LPM in time!

Re: Meter tests of lenses, goggles, and more!

bobhaha said:

AWESOME INFO!! btw we turned vet on the same day yay!!

Hey I'll be getting a bunch of new lens made, I'll let you know if I will give it the go ahead... if so, you can test it out, and show your results.. assuming I don't get a LPM in time!

Click to expand...

I'm glad someone cares about these tests

Re: Meter tests of lenses, goggles, and more!

I care...maybe. Glad to see you finally got your meter, now you can stop talking about waiting for it. :eg:

Re: Meter tests of lenses, goggles, and more!

bobhaha said:

AWESOME INFO!! btw we turned vet on the same day yay!!

Hey I'll be getting a bunch of new lens made, I'll let you know if I will give it the go ahead... if so, you can test it out, and show your results.. assuming I don't get a LPM in time!

Click to expand...

You didn't turn into a vet. You finished your process

I have tested these lenses and got completely different results. All of my comparisons were with an AixiZ acrylic lens that has the back opened.

This is important to note in comparisons...

I am guessing that your acrylic lens did have the back opened, and that explains two things:

1. The difference that you got between two acrylic lenses. (is the plastic showing some melting on any of them?)

2. The large increase with the AixiZ 405 lens.

See here:
http://laserpointerforums.com/f49/lenses-available-stonetek-org-comparison-44519.html

Miloš got very similar results as I did. As shown here:
http://laserpointerforums.com/f52/j...ns-vs-aixiz-standards-37895-4.html#post528392

I did see both of those tests. The reason I posted this is because I got way different results. On both of those aixiz lenses, the backs are NOT opened. Looks like I need to cut that plastic away and try again. I probably won't have time to make more graphs and videos, but I'll definitely list the results when I can find the time. Thank you for the input.

oh forgot to add, no none of the acrylic lenses are melted/melting. I don't use the aixiz acrylic in any of my builds so far, so all of mine are brand new from the aixiz modules.

I may have scratched the first aixiz acrylic when opening the back. I'll try another one and I'll be more careful this time.

Yeah, it's easy to scratch when opening the back. And that would definitely affect the output power...

If you get the same/similar results as Miloš and I got, and you got 160mW's with the AixiZ 405 glass lens, then you should get at least 150mW's with AixiZ acrylic. (back opened)

jayrob said:

Yeah, it's easy to scratch when opening the back. And that would definitely affect the output power...

If you get the same/similar results as Miloš and I got, and you got 160mW's with the AixiZ 405 glass lens, then you should get at least 150mW's with AixiZ acrylic. (back opened)

Click to expand...

ok, the second opened acrylic looks pretty clean, I'll give this a try when my batteries are done charging. Thanks!

Also, for a good comparison, make sure you focus both lenses at the same focal point before you meter them. And the meter is very sensitive too. So it is a good practice to 'zero' the meter between each test to be completely accurate... (in case you didn't already know that)

jayrob said:

Also, for a good comparison, make sure you focus both lenses at the same focal point before you meter them. And the meter is very sensitive too. So it is a good practice to 'zero' the meter between each test to be completely accurate... (in case you didn't already know that)

Click to expand...

I always zero the meter before each test. As far as the focal point goes, i noticed that as long as the entire dot was on the head, and if the distance between the laser and the meter stayed the same, I didn't see any change in reading.

I just tried it again just now, I metered my other PHR, then focused the lens in and out, and I didn't get any difference in reading.

Well, I mentioned it because sometimes it can make a slight difference in the metered power.

Depending on what diode and lens. In some cases, the lens can gather more light if it is brought closer to the diode. (because some light is lost as it 'fans' out and hits the side of the module before it gets to the lens)

jayrob said:

Well, I mentioned it because sometimes it can make a slight difference in the metered power.

Depending on what diode and lens. In some cases, the lens can gather more light if it is brought closer to the diode. (because some light is lost as it 'fans' out and hits the side of the module before it gets to the lens)

Click to expand...

that makes since. I think I was just looking at this from a conservation of mass standpoint, and the meter results matched so I went with it. I will adjust them to the same focal point, and also I'll hook up my DMM to get accuracy in 0.1mW increments. However, I've currently been avoiding my physics lab report, which I gotta try to do. I'll probably get these tests done tomorrow morning.

Thanks again Jay for your input, I was really starting to wonder why my results were so different.

EDIT: I tried the tests again, and got:
aixiz 405 glass: 155.3mW
aixiz acrylic with back opened: 141.6mW
That's a 9.7% increase.

second aixiz 405 glass: 155.2
second aixiz acrylic with back opened: 142.9
that's a 8.6% increase.

I also ran the tests with my weaker PHR:
aixiz 405 glass: 65.3mW
aixiz acrylic back opened: 58.5mW
That's a 11.6% increase

second 405 glass: 64.2mW
second aixiz acrylic back opened: 57.1mW
That's a 12.4% increase

PHR tests updated ^

I got closer results to jayrob's this time. I also have graphs from the focalprice and OEM certified goggles, I'll try to get those up here soon.

Good job with the testing... :gj:

Any idea why the nearly 5mW difference this time with the AixiZ 405 lens?

jayrob said:

Any idea why the nearly 5mW difference this time with the AixiZ 405 lens?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean.

edit: oh wait, I see what you're saying, I had about 5mW increase in the videos. One thing I have noticed by doing these tests multiple times, is that this "mystery PHR" in ehgemus host behaves oddly, and the run time with two CR123's and the rkcstr driver is pretty low. I have a Kryton 6x on the way which uses a flexdrive, I'll run these again with that laser also.