Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

LPF Donation via Stripe | LPF Donation - Other Methods

Links below open in new window

ArcticMyst Security by Avery

Care and feeding of your Arctic beast part (G)2

ZapU

0
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
393
Points
0
Wicked Lasers sent me a G2 to review.
I will mainly compare the differences between the G1 and the G2.

First change was it arrived from UPS, not the Postal Service. It was left on my doorstep without requiring a signature.

It was packed with bubble wrap and was undamaged.

DSCF1891.jpg


The customs declaration listed the ascension number and stated plainly it was from Wicked Lasers. No hassle with customs here.

DSCF1889-1.jpg


It came with a full lens set and a lens cleaning pen.

DSCF1892.jpg


The lens pen is a surprise as it is much smaller than the standand camera
lens pen. Much more useful for the small laser lens!

DSCF1935.jpg


The charger and the battery.
I can confirm it is a Sanyo battery, it's just very hard to read.
Also marked UR1850A. Quick Google search says it's a 2250mA unprotected
battery.

DSCF1938.jpg


DSCF1894.jpg



THE CHARGER FAILED AFTER JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES!
This is a problem with most of the recent G2’s shipped.
WL would do better to just ship lasers and let everyone get their own battery and charger like every other laser manufacturer. And if they continue to ship the goggles, they need to put a disclaimer on it saying it won't stop a direct shot.
WL goggles let through 18mW:
DSCF1930.jpg



The supplied goggles for the G2 on top of the one sent with the G1. Slightly darker tint, no text on the lens, otherwise identical.

DSCF1893.jpg


The paint on the G2 is more glossy than the G1 (top).
No scratches or flaws.
(I mounted a tripod nut on the G1, doesn’t come that way. ;) )

DSCF1897.jpg


Peak power no lens cap:
DSCF1919.jpg


Power settles in around ~760mW after a few minutes:
DSCF1925.jpg


Putting on the high power cap took off about 8mW. Much lower than previously reported! I now recommend leaving the high power cap on. I measured virtually no reflection off it.
DSCF1924.jpg


Power on high with training lens cap:
DSCF1921.jpg


Power on low with high power cap:
DSCF1923.jpg


Power on low with training lens cap:
DSCF1922.jpg


35mW reflected back at diode from the training lens cap:
DSCF1917.jpg


Nice sharp focus, clean beam at 20 feet:
DSCF1950-1.jpg


I won't go back over the different lenses. You can see pics of them
in The_LED_Museum review of the G2
http://laserpointerforums.com/f52/review-wicked-lasers-arctic-g2-56520.html

Took a minute or two to figure out the smart switch. Just memorize click, click, click, brief hold, brief hold. It works easily.

Wicked has gone the extra mile for safety. With the smart switch, no one will be able to pick up a G2 and use it if they don't know the code. Add the training lens and the safety pin, and you have a very secure package.

Updates:

Here's a video with the focusing lens cap on. Really fast! Compare it to the G1 in my other review (link in my sig)

The G2 lens is as good if not better than the Aixiz 445 lens I use in my G1. Same divergence, similar power, cleaner beam.



There is a bit of reflection off the focusing lens also:

DSCF1946.jpg


I ran the G2 for 35 minutes, including the burning video. Here are 5 shots taken at 5 min intervals after the video.

DSCF1952.jpg

DSCF1957.jpg

DSCF1958.jpg

DSCF1959.jpg

DSCF1961.jpg


Battery voltage was 3.85V and the battery temp was 95 degrees after 35 minutes. Room temp was 80. Still had two battery diodes lit.

The temps are lower than what I recorded on my G1 by around 10 degrees.

By the way, the Radiant Alpha was on the whole 35 minutes. Don't know what it's duty cycle is, but it was very stable for this test.

Update

Since I had such a small loss in mW from the high power lens on the G2, I decided to test the one on my G1. What a difference!
At 770mW, the G2 lens knocked off 7mW, about 1%. Then I tried the G1 high power lens, it dropped the power to 695mW, about 10%!
There are no visible differences between the two.

So those of you that have a G2, just keep your high power lens cap on.
If you have a G1, use the suggestions in my G1 tutorial.
http://laserpointerforums.com/f51/care-feeding-your-arctic-beast-54859.html.

I also tested the floodlight lens cap to see what the danger was from using it outside. Tested from 14 inches. The LPM sensor is much larger than the human pupil. Doesn't seem to be a worry:
DSCF1969.jpg


And then the flashlight lens cap. It could be dangerous at close range:
DSCF1970.jpg


Here's the Galaxy lens cap. I measured one of the brightest spots:
DSCF2017.jpg


I posted this is another thread, but I think it belongs here too. Galaxy lens
shot into a tree canopy.
IMG_2847.jpg


Update:

I measured the reflection off a textured white metal garage door:

DSCF2014.jpg


Here's a look inside when you take off the black ring. (Be careful not to turn the diode/lens housing underneath). The ring is different on the G2:

DSCF1997-1.jpg


To adjust or remove the lens, you have to scrape off the epoxy. You would only need to unscrew it about a 1/4 turn to close focus it for burning. The lens is a standard Aixiz thread and can be replaced with a Jayrob 405-G-1 lens to add about 100mW.

DSCF1999-1.jpg


The G2 lens is different from the latter model G1 lens also. It looks exactly like the Aixiz or O-like 405/445.

DSCF2023-1.jpg


Here is the output using the Jayrob 405-G-1 lens:

DSCF2019.jpg


Update:
I ran the OEM Sanyo battery till the laser shut down. It lasted 1hr, 20 mins.
Battery voltage was 3.53V.

Then I put in the Tenergy 2600 and ran it to shut down. It lasted 2hrs, 30 sec.
Battery voltage was 3.60V. 80 degree room, laser never got over 102.
Power dropped from 890mW at start to 825mW at end.
 
Last edited:





Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
6,309
Points
83
ZapU
I got the G1 Arctic but didn't get all those lenses. Your power and mine are about the same with and without the high power lens although I seem to have a little higher loss through the "window" That's no matter since the beam is SOOOO damn bright anyway.

HMike
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
2,031
Points
83
ZapU,

Don't post accession numbers. You should take down that Form 2877. It's good to see that WL has one, but generally accession numbers aren't meant for public consumption.

Part of this I beleive has to do with the re-use of them, I just know that CNI was very adamant that I not share their accession numbers.

Beyond that, not bad. I'm glad to see the training lens bounceback reading... And also verifies my rationale behind punching out one of the gratings in the lens kit to make a simple "hole only" lens on mine. I really wanted to see that, so +1 just for that, as it's useful and justifies the measures I took on mine.

Could you compare the two goggles pass-through side by side maybe?

How people manage to talk laser manufacturers into review units still is beyond me. I'd love to perform such a service. :)
 

ZapU

0
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
393
Points
0
ZapU,

Don't post accession numbers. You should take down that Form 2877. It's good to see that WL has one, but generally accession numbers aren't meant for public consumption.

Part of this I beleive has to do with the re-use of them, I just know that CNI was very adamant that I not share their accession numbers.

Beyond that, not bad. I'm glad to see the training lens bounceback reading... And also verifies my rationale behind punching out one of the gratings in the lens kit to make a simple "hole only" lens on mine. I really wanted to see that, so +1 just for that, as it's useful and justifies the measures I took on mine.

Could you compare the two goggles pass-through side by side maybe?

How people manage to talk laser manufacturers into review units still is beyond me. I'd love to perform such a service. :)

Steve offered me a review unit, I didn't ask for it.
Probably got it for taking so much heat on the Arctic. :rolleyes:
I'll still call it like I see it.

I didn't think it was a problem to show the accession number. It's posted on the Arctic's spec page at WL.

I'm reluctant to repeat the pass-through test. I tried to keep the goggles moving, but I still burned a couple of small spots on them.
I also did the test on the Eagle Pair goggles. Nothing got through.
 

W4NX

0
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
32
Points
0
Nice review. Thanks for taking the time to measure the basic lenses individually.
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
2,031
Points
83
Heh well okay, if they're posting it then I guess it doesn't matter...

Does the construction of the G2 seem much different than the G1 to you? I noticed the anodization looks a bit different.
 

ZapU

0
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
393
Points
0
Heh well okay, if they're posting it then I guess it doesn't matter...

Does the construction of the G2 seem much different than the G1 to you? I noticed the anodization looks a bit different.

The construction is more finished. The diode holes are cleaner and they work properly. The anodizing is smoother. There was no heat transfer paste visible inside the lens housing. It's a very nice unit.
 

ZapU

0
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
393
Points
0
Update:
Added burning video and battery duration tests.
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
2,031
Points
83
Well, heh, pretty much a moot point in the US now. Apparently as of today the Arctic has been "officially banned".... apparently posted on WL's "community" forum..

Really hope this doesn't spill over to other laser manufacturers.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,904
Points
0
Great review!

My Arctic G1 seems to have the glossy paint...

With all the negative press the arctic has gotten, I have to say... my G1 is pretty flawless.

Guess you get a few gems here and there :)

(Although it is underpowered, I can live with it)
 

Trevor

0
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
4,386
Points
113
I didn't think it was a problem to show the accession number. It's posted on the Arctic's spec page at WL.

I can confirm from speaking with the FDA that accession numbers are supposed to be confidential.

Though I'm not sure why exactly that would be.

-Trevor
 
Last edited:




Top