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



3.5W P / 2.5W CW 638nm HL63520HD

Exerd

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
446
Points
18
Searched forum, no mention of this diode yet--which surprised me. It is not a triple beam, rather a double diode/beam multi-mode in 9mm package made by Ushio.

Here is the spec sheet PDF link from Ushio:

HL63520HD.pdf

Enjoy :)
 



Alaskan

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
11,783
Points
113
Lifetime17 made a host from one of those. I prefer the triple beam though, just due to its wierdness.
 

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
16,283
Points
113
Both of those are weird! The beams diverge badly and cannot be made parallel.
 

Alaskan

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
11,783
Points
113
Kinda like my personality, I like it :)
 

Lifetime17

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
5,539
Points
113
Hi,
The twin beam diode is definitely a strange one. Thats why I purchased the diodes , there are a few left online see time to time. I purchased them out of curiosity . But they are cool.
Rich:)
 

Exerd

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
446
Points
18
Hi,
The twin beam diode is definitely a strange one. Thats why I purchased the diodes , there are a few left online see time to time. I purchased them out of curiosity . But they are cool.
Rich:)
I noticed people talking about the xxxxxG84 638nm, then saw them talking about 3W of pulsed 638nm coming next like it was (exciting). Stumbled on this and thought I was bringing something special or new to the table on that notion. Whoops! Pardon me.

I hadn't realized they arrange these as fast-axis against fast-axis until, well, recently. It may have to due with the lasing substrate and the way lasing occurs physically from the substrate--or I would think they would stack beams upon slow-axis proximity to bring divergence closer to ~X°=Y° of photonic distribution. I believe that would take a truly mirrored internal structure costing closer to 2 diodes rather than 2 beams, with opposed substrates and components split at the Z axis plane of diode. --Usually if it makes too much sense for you to not understand why the opposite is used, there's important physical reasons contributing, and even more important economic reasons dictating why. ;)

Rich,
did you try doing anything with the beams, for correction? Have link to any data acquired in overdriven testing or other links to using the diode that you can provide? I must have used the incorrect diode code format since forum search returned no results the same way I typed it in OP title. :unsure:

Here's one for you guys:

If multiple beams travel away from an alike plane, is their angle of separation, which remains relative with divergence, is it a value strictly designed by mfgr or inherent?

If two beams started from two parallel origination points on chip substrate that are only say 50um apart, ideally at infinity they are still 50um offset beams but with apparent total overlap to human eye--even after mere millimeters of travel distance.

Are the modes occurring within the cavity quantitatively field reacting under excitation, leading to electromagnetically squeezed/pressured states that cause axis non-parallelism?

Sorry to use so many words, I am attempting to describe my misunderstanding fully. ;)

To further the issue even moreso, couldn't one of two beams be knife-edged out, reflected via mirrors to then enter a PBS cube that the other beam entered with correct polarization, and beams be stacked very closely to form a single beam 638nm?
 

Lifetime17

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
5,539
Points
113
Hi ,
Not didn't try to correct the beam , I don't really know if a beam expander would work either. Personally I just think its a cool diode the way it is. If a 520 or a 450nm twin would come out I would buy it just out of curiosity .
Old saying Curiosity killed the cat, But satisfaction brought him back.
Rich:)
 

logsquared

Active member
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
194
Points
28
Here's one for you guys:

If multiple beams travel away from an alike plane, is their angle of separation, which remains relative with divergence, is it a value strictly designed by mfgr or inherent?
The raw divergence from the emitter is due to the geometry of the cavity, wavelength, etc.

If two beams started from two parallel origination points on chip substrate that are only say 50um apart, ideally at infinity they are still 50um offset beams but with apparent total overlap to human eye--even after mere millimeters of travel distance.
This is true, but only before you collimate the multiple beams. After collimation the far field is just an image of the emitters including the space between them.

Are the modes occurring within the cavity quantitatively field reacting under excitation, leading to electromagnetically squeezed/pressured states that cause axis non-parallelism?
No clue?

To further the issue even moreso, couldn't one of two beams be knife-edged out, reflected via mirrors to then enter a PBS cube that the other beam entered with correct polarization, and beams be stacked very closely to form a single beam 638nm?
Yes.
 

Exerd

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
446
Points
18
The raw divergence from the emitter is due to the geometry of the cavity, wavelength, etc.


This is true, but only before you collimate the multiple beams. After collimation the far field is just an image of the emitters including the space between them.


No clue?



Yes.
So someone should be knife edging single diodes by now! :D
 

aaronnoraa

Active member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
116
Points
28
So someone should be knife edging single diodes by now! :D

Or PBS combined as mentioned above.. which seems like a great idea as one diode can manage 2.5W using passive cooling, running rated output (more if overdriven) in to a 2.5 watt single axis, overlapped NON knife edged beam if a wave rotator and PBS cube are used.. something just not possible with P73's without active cooling (if two p73's could manage even 2.5W at all in a portable setup).

Passively cooled, it would take 4 P73's to get that amount of output at rated power PLUS require the two PBS combined beams to be knife edged.


If you take correction in to account, using a single HL63520 combined would only require 2 c-lens pairs to correct the output, whereas the P73 setup would require 4 (and still be knife edged).

If just two HL63520 diodes were used, each with a wave rotator/PBS, with all 4 beams c-lens corrected and the combined pair after PBS were knife edged, 5+ watts of non overdriven, corrected 635nm would be possible from just two knife edged beams from only two diodes.
 

CDBEAM777

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
1,415
Points
113
Now...THIS gets my Hair On Fire !!! 5 Watts 'O' Red ???? I dunno....The HL63193 can be pushed some to yield 1 W....so 4 in an over/under knife edge...4W..Well....probably less to loss....Crap...I got enough projects to last to 2025 !!!
 

Attachments





Top