Testing Wicked Laser Arctic in laser lab 08/02/10; your requests are welcome

WHERE ARE THE TEST RESULTS?

grr...

Uranium said:

WHERE ARE THE TEST RESULTS?

grr...

Click to expand...

Come on man. Post the test results!!!!!

Hi all... sorry for the long delay. The visit to LBL was on Monday, and since that time I have had to work on other magazine and website projects. Here's a quick report:
- Besides myself, in attendance were our photographer, our videographer, LBL's laser safety officer, a laser lab technician, and two college interns who are working at LBL this summer.
- I had much less time than expected. This made it impossible to do more than just three simple tests.
- We only had a chance to test one of our two Arctics with one of our three batteries. Keep that in mind when considering my results.
- The one Arctic we tested metered at 550mw, which is about 150mw below what Steve of WL says we should expect. The laser is supposed to emit a minimum of 800mw directly off the aperture, he says, and this will translate to 700mw when a reading is taken through the "full strength" lens. He think there could have been an issue with my battery, and he may be right -- I'm frustrated that we didn't have time to test the other two batteries.
- The meter had just been calibrated -- but for infra-red (because that's what the lab had just been using the meter for). FWIW, the technician said that miscalibration will yield a margin of error of at most 15%. So we can take that into account as we consider our 550mw reading.
- I have decided to spring for a power meter. It should be arriving today. So I'll get new readings on both lasers, and all three batteries.
- Moving on: Using a focusing lens, the arctic burned a hole through Kentek laser alignment paper within seconds. (ZAP-IT)
- We also aimed the beam at the safety goggles, and they became etched after about 30-45 seconds. When I get to work and post images, I'll include a shot of the goggle lens.
- We're doing our studio photo shoot today. This is when we'll attempt to fully burn through the goggles.
- I bought some laser mirrors from novalasers. We'll be using those for the afternoon shoot, and also, thanks everyone for the set-up advice.

Other information:
- I spoke with the FAA yesterday about their policies, and pending legislation that will federalize penalties for flashing aircraft. All of this will be in my article write-up.
- I also have a call in to the CDRH. For what it's worth, I really don't expect this laser to be "stopped at customs."
- I've turned on the laser at night, in my backyard, in foggy San Francisco, aiming it toward the sky, making sure no aircraft is overhead. The beam is absolutely spectacular.

If 550mw is the 'real world' output of this it's a sorry situation. Someone else measured in the 700's so there's still hope. Best to get this straightened out.

JonOrangeLotus said:

The beam is absolutely spectacular.

Click to expand...

uh-oh, i think somebody is hooked


michael

mac jones said:

If 550mw is the 'real world' output of this it's a sorry situation. Someone else measured in the 700's so there's still hope. Best to get this straightened out.

Click to expand...

Well, let's reserve judgment for now. Hopefully the meter will arrive today as scheduled.

chipdouglas said:

uh-oh, i think somebody is hooked


michael

Click to expand...

Hahaha... Yeah, well all I'll say is that holding the Arctic straight up into the night sky is like being in a CG space-fantasy movie -- in the real world, in real time. Unfortunately, holding the Arctic straight up into the night sky is also not a completely safe, prudent or wise thing to do.

So Jon, Max PC is based out of South City? Surely there must be a local university with some time before Autumn quarter begins. Stanford comes to mind.

boscoj said:

So Jon, Max PC is based out of South City? Surely there must be a local university with some time before Autumn quarter begins. Stanford comes to mind.

Click to expand...

Um... for what purpose? I took the lasers to the LBL laser lab on Monday. I had called Stanford too, but schedules didn't work out. But again, I'm getting my own meter today. It will only report power, granted.

For doing all the tests that you wanted to do . . . do you know when Stanford starts back up? I gather it is soon . . .

JonOrangeLotus said:

Um... for what purpose? I took the lasers to the LBL laser lab on Monday. I had called Stanford too, but schedules didn't work out. But again, I'm getting my own meter today. It will only report power, granted.

Click to expand...

Ah... Yeah, I just won't have time, this time around. But now that we have the meter, the mirrors, and some other equipment, we'll work on a relative steady stream of laser coverage. We'll arrange a group test in the coming months, and at that point I'll request assistance from a well-outfitted lab. For now, we'll have to rely on others for specs beyond basic power output (and how long it takes to burn through the goggles).

... Come on guys.
YouTube - ‪Handheld Laser Boils Water?‬‎
Boiling water is no problem. I'm sure that will be a cake walk.
If the cow eye experiment was doable with your amount of time, I'd love to see it.
That would be a testament to the true dangers of high-powered lasers, and blue lights.

Dave (Daguin) posted pix of a melted spot in the glasses with around 4-6 seconds of direct exposure, I believe.
I would like to see a reading of the power through the glasses, and to know how long it takes to melt a hole completely through one of the lenses.

If their meter (presumably an optical meter) was calibrated for "IR" (did they say what wavelength? do you have any other info on the meter?), then the power measurement you got means absolutely nothing. "15% error" in this case is just like 71% of all statistics: made up on the spot.

JonOrangeLotus said:

Good idea about measuring the power of the beam once it has passed through the goggles. We'll do that. FWIW, I think there are two goggle versions, and we received the less expensive version. Regardless, we can identify the precise goggle model when report results of that test.

To answer another question, I reached out to WL quite a while ago, requesting review units of various lasers in anticipation of our magazine launch (Maximum Tech). Coincidentally, this was right when news of the Arctic was just hitting. Long story, short, we have a review unit. I didn't order the Arctic via the typical channels. So, yes, WL knows who we are. To this extent, yes, it's possible a laser was cherry-picked for us -- a "ringer" if you will. However... we now have a second Arctic. So we will be testing two (both G1s).

What do you guys think about burning through a very large chunk of wax -- a large, dark candle? This wouldn't be so much a burning experiment, as a chance to capture some cool, telling video. Think the beam would burn clean through before the wax could drip and fill the hole?

Click to expand...

I believe that the wax wouldn't be stable, however you might try the same thing with some dense foam. Or maybe some Aerogel!

pullbangdead said:

If their meter (presumably an optical meter) was calibrated for "IR" (did they say what wavelength? do you have any other info on the meter?), then the power measurement you got means absolutely nothing. "15% error" in this case is just like 71% of all statistics: made up on the spot.

Click to expand...

Listen, I'm new to this forum. I don't know ANYONE on this board -- at all. So I want to be very careful about calling anyone out. But when a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs makes a statement about margin of error, I'm going to at least report what he says. Regardless, I have some new readings, which I'll report now in this thread...

The LaserCheck from Coherent came today. This is how it's advertised:

Coherent Inc. : LaserCheck

We ran the LaserCheck today in the photo studio, metering one of the Arctics, which was loaded with two different batteries that had been taxed for a while. So: one laser, two batteries, both batteries pretty well taxed. The one laser we were using peaked at 557mw(can't remember which battery). That is dead-on consistent with the power we were getting at Lawrence Berkeley. Yet, strangely, we were using a just-charged battery at LBL.

Today's metering in the studio was disconcerting, to say the least -- a very low number. But the battery was in use for quite a few minutes previously. That's an important note.

When I got home tonight, I charged both batteries. About 10 minutes ago I tested both Arctic G1s with both fully charged batteries (at least according to the charger LEDs). The LaserCheck was set for 445nm. Here are my readings; these are peak readings after a number of test runs for each scenario below:

laser a, battery a: 751mw
laser a, batter b: 747mw
laser b, batter a: 720mw
laser b, battery b: 726mw

If we follow WL's advisory that the Arctic is at least 800mw at the aperture, and at least 700mw through the standard lens, then it seems that both lasers are working properly. In the coming days I will try to repeat the low rating we got at LBL.

Also, I can report that after about 7 minutes, 25 seconds, the laser (albeit on a partially drained battery) hadn't yet burned clean through one of the goggles. I am going to try that test again soon, this time with a freshly charged battery. It did burn a LOT of the goggles, just not clean through.

Also, I can report that even the partially charged battery provokes a beam that burns kentek laser paper almost immediately. We timed that experiment, but I don't have the numbers with me.