FS: >110mW PHR, >140mW 4x & >170mW 6x Blu-Rays

FrancoRob said:

If I put the dot in focus it becomes a so thin point that's really difficult to see any difference....

Click to expand...

That was the comparison that would be most interesting, as most do not use their lasers 'out of focus'...

And the 405-G-1 glass lens is a very 'short focus' design. So it will be out of focus with less turning of the lens. (very 'quick' focus - but you get used to it)
Jay

jayrob said:

That was the comparison that would be most interesting, as most do not use their lasers 'out of focus'...

And the 405-G-1 glass lens is a very 'short focus' design. So it will be out of focus with less turning of the lens. (very 'quick' focus - but you get used to it)
Jay

Click to expand...

Ok, I tried it! the two lasers (on their tripod) have been located at a distance of 10 meters from the glowing sheet, then focused on the screen. The camera has been located a little bit shifted respect the beams axis to avoid any interference, then the picture has been taken with the same characteristics of the others. Also with the right shutter speed and taking the picture of the induced phosphorescence only, (that is putting a mask screen two seconds before the shot) the collimated dots are very bright, and leave a much larger central undefined zone respect to the real dot.

BTW, the difference between the two dots are visible: the 405-G-1 leaves a small series of horizontal asymmetric ghosts, more on the left side in this case (but it is just a question on how the lens has been turned for focusing purposes), while the IgorT medium lens leaves all around a slight oval dot a series of small ghosts, like the petals of a flower.



I'm sure that, with a more technical equipment and more experience (and not being alone while doing the job:can, better results can be obtained for sure, but I think that this picture can be sufficient for the scope.... or not:thinking:? The answer to the LPF members.....

That's what I was interested in!

Thanks for doing that...

Nice job too. I wanted to see the difference in the size of the focused dot, because the 405-G-1 glass lens burns so good... I can see from your pictures, that the dot is smaller. (although a large 'splash')

That said, I'm sure Igor's lens will burn very well too! And I am waiting to receive it. He is supposed to send it to me as soon as he gets it back from you...
Jay

Yes, I know you have to mount the lens in a metal lens nut :yh:...
I have already sent a message to him informing of the lasers arrival, but no answer, it looks he is moving in these days, BTW I'll ship the 6x BR + lens back to him as I'll receive his confirmation, I still have a 300mW and more red laser to play with.....:evil:

FrancoRob said:

...the IgorT medium lens leaves all around a slight oval dot a series of small ghosts, like the petals of a flower.

Click to expand...

That's very odd, to say the least! I wonder what Igor thinks about the pattern... :undecided:

FrancoRob:

Wow! you've done an excellent job in reviewing and posting the pictures of your testing. Keep up the good work, you've put a lot of work into this for sure.

Traveller:
Odd or not, this is a picture; I repeat what I wrote: "...collimated dots are very bright, and leave a much larger central undefined zone respect to the real dot."
Before sending back the laser, I'll try to make other pictures of the focused dots, but I don't think they will change what is clear: the IgorT medium lens shows a very low splash. The point that Jay has underlined requires a further investigation, and in the same time I hope to receive also the LarryDFW lens.....

Electron:
thank you for your appreciation, I'll try to improve even more my work. :yh:

Essays about a Laser do provide good tech info, but pictures speak thousands of words.

Keep up the great work, much appreciated that you are sharing all of this with us.

FrancoRob said:

Traveller:
Odd or not, this is a picture; I repeat what I wrote: "...collimated dots are very bright, and leave a much larger central undefined zone respect to the real dot."
Before sending back the laser, I'll try to make other pictures of the focused dots, but I don't think they will change what is clear: the IgorT medium lens shows a very low splash. The point that Jay has underlined requires a further investigation, and in the same time I hope to receive also the LarryDFW lens.....

Electron:
thank you for your appreciation, I'll try to improve even more my work. :yh:

Click to expand...

Just so you know, LarryDFW is using the exact same optic as my 405-G-1. I'm sure your test results will be the exact same as with mine...
Jay

I have spent part of the night and all this day thinking at the yesterday test; something was not sounding right to me, as the pictures taken with the glowing paper were not showing what I saw with my eyes.
So I covered a 3 mm. thick aluminum plate with an orange self-adhesive film, put it on the usual support at the usual distance of 10 m. from the lasers, and I took a serie of pictures of the lasers focused dots.
herebelow are the pictures: the first show the distance between the living room (where I put the lasers) and the "photographic" screen; the second is the support with the orange film set in place, and the third (I have choosen the most clear between the several I have taken) is the picture of the two dots.



In this picture I have tried to show at the best the central part of the dots. Now the dots are as I was seeing them. So, why the difference with the previous picture showing the two dots together on the glowing sheet? I think that the answer is (again) in the different P.O. of the two lasers: 110mW of difference have created a bigger "saturated" halo in the IgorT medium lens dot respect to the 405-G-1 lens one. To understand the dot size at 10 m. of distance, I have added a scale.
Well, I think I have done all the possible to give to all of you a real comparison of how the two lenses work....

Jay: Yea, I know that the lenses are identical, but maybe it is different the fitting assy (I don't know, maybe the LarryDFW lens is held with a washer, or maybe it is set not in the same distance from the rear end of the nut....), or maybe it is my exasperated willing to be objective....

These are some great comparisons you are doing with the pictures and stuff, and don't take this wrong, but I can see from the pictures that the 405-G-1 lens is not in focus.

Just from the fact that the dot is not as bright, but also from the size...
Jay

I was sure it was going to happen....

Well, no more comment; I have really carefully repeated all the job, checking three times for the focusing, and herebelow is a new picture of the two dots focused at the best (the lasers and the support were still in place).



This IS the lens I got from you. BTW, every owner of one of your lenses can do the same job, focusing it at 10 m. and applying a ruler to show the size. Being 66, I don't put on a poker table a life spent in Aeronautic and Quality.

Well, forgive me FrancoRob if I have said anything that offended you.

I understand that you are only trying to show a comparison as best as you can...

But it is not a real comparison, unless the same diodes are used. In fact, it should be the same laser. (switching lenses)

But if Igor told you not to take the lens out of the laser, then all of your efforts are really not a proper comparison of lenses.

He must not have wanted you to compare the lenses. It obviously does not hurt anything to take the lens out for comparison purposes if you want a proper comparison.

A PHR diode is different than a GGW 6X diode.

Despite your rigorous efforts, the lenses must be compared with the same diode. I'm sure that Igor would agree.

And showing pictures like this of different diodes can give a wrong impression if others are not reading every single word. (and even if they are)
Jay

FrancoRob said:

the IgorT medium lens shows a very low splash.

Click to expand...

That's good news, indeed :wave:

My original comment was in regard to the odd shape you captured using Igor's laser. Here's a pic of my Igor 6X with the original acrylic next to Dave's 6X with JayRob's 405-G-1 lens. The acrylic logically also has a much lower "splash", relatively speaking, but the pattern is 100% identical.

That's why I found your image of Igor's laser "pattern" odd...

Jay:
Well, I admit I have been slightly irritated by your comment, ok, no problem; the point is that I always do of my best to be objective, in spite of the results.....

Now, let us come back to the meaning of the pictures: as you surely remember, Igor made a long research about the lenses that were best suitable for BR; he found three lenses: v1, v2 and v3.
He concluded that the v2 (Medium Lens) was the best compromise between power and beam shape:

"...My high wavelength PHR with lens #1 gets increased from 166 to 195mW, that's 17.5%!

With lens #2 it goes from 166mW to 209mW! That's 26%!

I'll explain later why PHRs get increased more than a 6x. It has to do with the beam distribution profile...

But the point is. I'm seeing ABSOLUTELLY MASSIVE increases here! Well beyond my wildest dreams!
And both lenses are still dirty, and #2 is not even centered yet, nor have i tested the third lens yet!

Even lens #1 would be worth it! But lens #2 is simply amazing! I almost don't want to test lens #3, cos i want #2 to be the winner... *:..."

So, to get a better beam shape, his lens loose a 2% of P.O. respect your. And this is clear to everybody that have followed all the lens history. Your lens has an increase of 28%. So it burns more, whatever the diode beam shape/splash is.

I have two green lasers: a DL 95 GW and a CNI 175: both show a bigger dot in comparison to your focused dot, and their divergence is good; so where is the problem?

Concerning the fact that Igor asked to not remove the lens from his seating, in all his threads you'll read his caution to not remove the lens to keep it clean. No other hidden reasons, and as I know that his lens P.O. gain is 26%, why the need to remove it? When you'll receive the lens to fit it in a metallic nut, you'll be surely able to perform all checks you need...:yh:

CONCLUSIONS: all guys willing to get the best P.O. from their BR will be surely happy to get one of your lenses, comforted by the fact it is the most efficient on the actual BR scenario, while those willing to have a more regular beam, at the cost of a bit less P.O., will be happy to get the IgorT lens, when it will be available.

And I still have to test the LarryDFW nut lens assy.... when it will arrive.... when the Italian Post Service will have back the 100% of man-power after summer vacations....


Traveller:
I already explained the reason of the wider dot on the glowing sheet, and this is why I repeated the test relevant to the focused dots, while I think that the use of the glowing sheet was perfect to see the shape with the unfocused beams (tested one by one).

Is this whole debate sill about "splash"? I thought all this was already settled? Or am I wrong?