OMFG! "Cancer ray"!!!!

digital_blue · Mar 9, 2009

Okay okay, I kid. ;D

I got a pair of these puppies back a few months ago from an ebay auction with the help of lasersbee(thanks again Jerry). I've only recently had time to sit down and fool around with these. Unfortunately, I don't have all the equipment to get get this laser firing but I should have something worked out within the next few weeks. Just enjoy the pics for now. FYI, this is a 355nm UV laser made by a Russian company "Laser export". At full power, this thing will fire 30uJ pulses at 0.2-5 kHz at 10 nanoseconds. Hopefully, I'll have some beamshots in a few weeks. My other unit doesn't power up and I'll probably end up either repairing it or using it for spare parts...

Warning label

Striptease ;D

Optical combiner of some sort?

The white thing to the right is the 532nm and 1064nm source, The middle "box" is the Opto-electrical modulator(thanks Gooeygus) AKA Q-switch. The leftmost box is the "summing" crystal that creates the UV.

PSU innards

The whole system

Spyderz20x6 · Mar 9, 2009

Sweet

Can you show pics of it in action?

lasersbee · Mar 9, 2009

Let us know when you get it going... and (you're very welcome)..

Jerry

digital_blue · Mar 9, 2009

Sweet Cool
Can you show pics of it in action?

Unfortunately, It needs a proper remote unit and pulse source. My signal generator only outputs 3 volts peak to peak and the laser requires 5V. The current "dongle" as seen should bypass the interlock and stuff but I'll eventually need a remote.

daguin · Mar 9, 2009

digital_blue said:
Okay okay, I kid. ;D

I got a pair of these puppies back a few months ago from an ebay auction with the help of lasersbee(thanks again Jerry). I've only recently had time to sit down and fool around with these. Unfortunately, I don't have all the equipment to get get this laser firing but I should have something worked out within the next few weeks. Just enjoy the pics for now. FYI, this is a 355nm UV laser made by a Russian company "Laser export". At full power, this thing will fire 30uJ pulses at 0.2-5 kHz at 10 nanoseconds. Hopefully,[highlight] I'll have some beamshots in a few weeks.[/highlight] My other unit doesn't power up and I'll probably end up either repairing it or using it for spare parts...

Beam shots are going to be pretty tough at 355nm. 355nm is well into the [highlight]ultra violet[/highlight] range.

Peace,
dave

digital_blue · Mar 9, 2009

daguin said:
Beam shots are going to be pretty tough at 355nm. 355nm is well into the [highlight]ultra violet[/highlight] range.

Peace,
dave

Actually, 355nm appears perfectly fine on my camera(I've checked it on another laser). Looks kinda bluish violet...

JLSE · Mar 9, 2009

daguin said:
[quote author=digital_blue link=1236568266/0#0 date=1236568266]Okay okay, I kid. ;D

I got a pair of these puppies back a few months ago from an ebay auction with the help of lasersbee(thanks again Jerry). I've only recently had time to sit down and fool around with these. Unfortunately, I don't have all the equipment to get get this laser firing but I should have something worked out within the next few weeks. Just enjoy the pics for now. FYI, this is a 355nm UV laser made by a Russian company "Laser export". At full power, this thing will fire 30uJ pulses at 0.2-5 kHz at 10 nanoseconds. Hopefully,[highlight] I'll have some beamshots in a few weeks.[/highlight] My other unit doesn't power up and I'll probably end up either repairing it or using it for spare parts...

Beam shots are going to be pretty tough at 355nm. 355nm is well into the [highlight]ultra violet[/highlight] range.

Peace,
dave[/quote]

Depends on the cam.. My Sony loves 405nm, it appears brighter at 100mW than a 100mW 532. My old camera picked it up as more of a blue, this one catches the violet very well.

Nice laser BTW

Spyderz20x6 · Mar 9, 2009

Be careful...
It could very much give you cancer...

That thing will tangle your genetic code like the wires behind my computer

daguin · Mar 9, 2009

WannaBurn said:
Beam shots are going to be pretty tough at 355nm. 355nm is well into the [highlight]ultra violet[/highlight] range.

Peace,
dave

Depends on the cam.. My Sony loves 405nm, it appears brighter at 100mW than a 100mW 532. My old camera picked it up as more of a blue, this one catches the violet very well.

Nice laser BTW

So you're saying that he either has to get "lucky" or choose his camera carefully? I still say it's going to be tough. Your camera might love 405nm, but 355nm is a long way from 405nm.

Peace,
dave

JLSE · Mar 9, 2009

Would it not be the same thing as IR? I cant see IR either, but any cam with minimal IR filtering sees it just fine. I can barely see 808nm, and absolutely see nothing at 1064nm, but my cameras see both with no problem.

The other thing is, there is no UV filter in most cams. Be interesting to see none the less.

daguin · Mar 9, 2009

WannaBurn said:
Would it not be the same thing as IR? I cant see IR either, but any cam with minimal IR filtering sees it just fine. I can barely see 808nm, and absolutely see nothing at 1064nm, but my cameras see both with no problem.
The other thing is, there is no UV filter in most cams. Be interesting to see none the less.

I don't think that what happens with IR can be generalized to UV. Maybe a "camera" enthusiast will jump in, but we take pictures of minerals being fluoresced by long wave UV all the time. The UV light is not much of an issue in the pictures.

Peace,
dave

digital_blue said:
Actually, 355nm appears perfectly fine on my camera(I've checked it on another laser). Looks kinda bluish violet...

Interesting.

Peace,
dave

Jimmymcjimthejim · Mar 9, 2009

You should take that to the beach and write stuff (in "sunburns") on tanning people's backs.

Cyparagon · Mar 9, 2009

UVA is incapable of tanning.

Spyderz20x6 said:
Be careful...
It could very much give you cancer...

Oh please. There's more danger in taking a stroll.

laserfreak3d · Mar 9, 2009

hi

why not make a pulse source for it with a ne555

Alsone · Mar 9, 2009

I'd be very careful taking photos of pulsed lasers.

Average power might be 420mw but that probably includes the 0 mw periods between the pulses as average by its very nature is power over time. The pulses could easily be in the tens of watts range and thus extremely eye hazardous. That's why bodies such as ILDA recommend pulsed lasers are NEVER used for audience scanning situations. To put it simply, their rated power massively disguises their actual power during the pulses.

By the same token, what Spyder said isn't as daft as it sounds. An intense pulse of UV could contain enough energy to cause cell damage even over such a short period of time as its the tissue penetration and energy transferred to the cells that does the damage not the duration. Even if it wasn't pulsed, you have to remember that laser light is many thousands of times more intense than ordinary light and thus its wattage rating belies its energy potential.

Benm · Mar 9, 2009

WannaBurn said:
The other thing is, there is no UV filter in most cams. Be interesting to see none the less.

I'd be careful about using 'most' there. A camera sensitive to UV will not yield the prettiest of pictures when shooting outdoors.

For SLRs the UV filter is typically something you attach to the lens, but for compacts its often built in - or at least the optics are coated to prevent most of it hitting the sensor. Then again, the laser spot is so intense that it will still be visible even if it is attenuated a factor 100 or so, so you can take pictures.

For blu ray its all much less pronounced, since its on the border of visible and common uv filters usually pass most 405 nm light by design.

OMFG! "Cancer ray"!!!!

digital_blue

0

Spyderz20x6

0

lasersbee

0

digital_blue

0

daguin

0

digital_blue

0

JLSE

1

Spyderz20x6

0

daguin

0

JLSE

1

daguin

0

Jimmymcjimthejim

0

Cyparagon

0

laserfreak3d

0

Alsone

0

Benm

0

Online statistics

Forum statistics

Share this page