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



Laser Pointer Store

Allegations of LaseerBee Product Inaccuracy by ARGLaser

Status
Not open for further replies.

lasersbee

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
17,505
Points
113
As most of you are aware the accuracy of our LaserBee Products
has once again been called into question. This time by ARGLaser.

When ARGLaser first mentioned (in Dec 2012) his Electrical Noise
Issues and reading inaccuracies here...

http://laserpointerforums.com/f70/laserbee-vs-ophir-what-78777.html

we immediately offered to have his LaserBee II sent back to
us and we would check what the problem might be. ARGLaser
decided (for some unknown reason) not to accept our offer.

On Feb 18 that same 9 month old LaserBee II was put up for
sale and we bought it back so that we could correct any possible
problems with our design if that was the case.

The LaserBee II had been well cared for except for a finger mark
on the front of the Heatsink. The Thermopile sensor's coating was
still pristine with no marks on it at all.
The recorded Calibration value associated with the Serial number
had not been changed.
All the tests below were performed with ARGlaser's LaserBee II
exactly as received.

Then we saw this Thread..........

Accuracy of LaserBee products

These tests have taken almost 2 days to compile data so bear with
me...


THE 10-15% INACCURACY CLAIMS

It was originally claimed that the LB-II that ARGLaser had in his posession
was tested by him to be reading ~10% low. Later that percentage jumped
to 12% low and recently that number was increased again by ARGLaser to
possibly be off by 15%...

I measured it to be 10% off myself, but the laserbee was picking up noise then, so give or take 2%
The laser bee II (in my case) is around 10% off in the 1.8W range,
at higher powers the inaccuracy increases.

I'm sure a fair number of the LB LPM's here are not reading as they should at the higher ranges.
If I am correct then the laserbee is not a solid product since units such as mine, and danefex's have different curve adjustments which are not accounted for and they will end up being off by up to 15%.



THE MARIOMASTER OPHIR TEST

Here is a pic of the test MM did on ARGLaser's OPHIR Head although
I don't see the OPHIR head in question.


It seems quite accurate and the OPHIR head only reads low
by 0.5% on the snipped Pro's screen.

It is no be noted that the minimum on the Pro shows to be
0mW. ARGLaser has stated many times that his OPHIR head
only goes down to +7mW. (More on this later).

The Ophir reading (Minus 7 mV for zeroing)



TEST EQUIPMENT USED

We purchased a Brand New Coherent FieldMax II TO a few months
ago directly from Coherent. We had no contacts at Coherent so we
got no special treatment or special deals. It cost us more than $2000.00
by the time we got it into our hands.

- NIST Traceable Coherent FieldMax II TO Laser Power Meter
- Coherent 30 Watt Thermopile Head
- recently calibrated NewPort 1825C Laser Power Meter
- Newport 10 Watt Thermopile Head
- New OPHIR 20C head (reads 0.00mV after 15 min powered warmup)
- Opto Power Corp 40 Amp Laser Diode Driver (for test Laser)
- Fluke DMM
- Isolated and Regulated split rail Power Supply (for OPHIR Head)




ACCURACY OF COHERENT FIELDMAX TO NEWPORT








ACCURACY OF NEWPORT TO OUR UNTOUCHED OPHIR





Charted Data

Newport mW...... OPHIR mW...... %ERROR

0177mW................0182mW.............+2.8%
0645mW................0663mW.............+2.7%
1340mW................1371mW.............+2.3% (Pics above)
1984mW................2022mW.............+1.9%
2670mW................2711mW.............+1.5%
3400mW................3457mW.............+1.6%
4160mW................4240mW.............+1.9%
5120mW................5220mW.............+1.9% (Pics above)

As can be seen the OPHIR values fall into the stated 3% accuracy
of the OPHIR heads but read on the HIGH side.

ACCURACY OF ARG's OLD LASERBEE II TO NEWPORT











Charted Data

Newport mW...... ARG's LB-II mW...... %ERROR

0153mW.....................0154mW................+0.6%
0497mW.....................0502mW................+1.0%
0500mW.....................0505mW................+1.0%
1340mW.....................1358mW................+1.3% (Pics above)
1507mW.....................1540mW................+2.1%
1886mW.....................1914mW................+1.4% (Pics above)
2513mW.....................2558mW................+1.7%
3110mW.....................3148mW................+1.2%

As can be seen ARGLaser's old LaserBee II is still in spec
and is still very well calibrated over it's range.
It is to be noted that it reads on the HIGH side.

CLAIMED RADIATING ELECTRICAL FIELD NOISE ISSUES

We performed a few tests with electrical transmitting devices
we had in the shop and could not introduce and readable jitter
on the LCD display while holding a stable Laser onto the
Thermopile sensor of ARG's LaserBee II...

The Transmitting devices were held at the locations shown
in the Picture as close as possible to force a deviation in
Laser power being read on the LB-II's LCD.



Charted Data

Transmitting Device......................Deviations in mW


315MHz KeyChain Remote.................Zero Deviations
433MHz KeyChain Remote.................Zero Deviations
27MHz 100mW R/C Xmitter.................Zero Deviations
72MHz 100mW R/C Xmitter.................Zero Deviations
75MHz 100mW R/C Xmitter.................Zero Deviations
2.4GHz 100mW R/C Xmitter................Zero Deviations
iPhone (making call)..........................Zero Deviations

It is to be noted that the R/C Transmitters have enough output power that
they can transmit a usable R/C signal for over a mile.


TEST CONCLUSIONS

From the Tests above we can't see any of the LOW reading issues claimed
by ARGLaser...
It is obviously clear to us that the LaserBee II in question is still calibrated
and as accurate as it was when it left the shop ~9 months ago...
And from the info above the LaserBee in question does NOT read LOW
against a professional LPM but slightly HIGH.

That would infer that ARGLaser's calibration standard for his new LPMs
could possibly be ~17% Higher than it should be..

The OPHIR Heads seem to increase in error the Lower you go in Power.
It was also shown that the OPHIR heads in general read a bit higher
than even our NIST traceable Coherent FieldMax II TO. We've noticed
that many times before.

We have also seen that MarioMaster powering ARGLaser's OPHIR head
with the better quality and higher cost Split Supply of the PRO seemed
to Zero out as shown on the Pro's display minimum reading.

ARGLaser's OPHIR Head in question only seems to exhibit this +7mW
Zero condition when ARGLaser powers it up. I wonder if he powers it
up with his new unregulated OPHIR head Power supply chip. There may
be a problem there.

We were not able to induce any electrical noise into ARGLaser's LB-II.
We were also not willing to zap it with a 120Volt arc or a Jacobs Ladder
output.

Perhaps ARGLasers's OPHIR head had been tampered with at one point
and is no longer linear or correctly calibrated over it's range.

Perhaps ARGLaser damaged the electronics of the OPHIR head while
designing his OPHIR PS as Kenom had done in the past with some of
his OPHIR heads.

We know that some members have heads that are off by 15%. There
was a Thread about that which posed the possibility that someone
may have tampered with the 3 pots on the PCB inside the OPHIR
heads of that Thread.

My concerns are that if ARGLaser is selling LPMs that have been calibrated
with a calibration standard that is defective or not correct all his LPMs
will have calibration issues no matter how much he does any 3000 point
"Curve Adjustments"....

BTW.... the latest catch phrase seems to be "Curve Adjustment".
We call it "Non Linear Error Correction" and has been implemented in all
LaserBee LPM Products in one form or another for the past 5 years,

Perhaps the problem lies at the source of the inaccuracy claims....

If you want to compare our LaserBee LPM Products to some LPM
standard then compare it against a Professional LPM..... We do...

At this point we feel that you should have perhaps kept your Deluxe
LaserBee II and use it for your Calibration source...

POST SCRIPT

I believe that some of the members here have forgotten that even
our LaserBee LPM Products are geared to the Hobbyist market.

We don't claim to sell professional grade commercial LPMs and we
don't compete with true professional LPM ciompanies like OPHIR...
NewPort or Coherent.


Jerry
J.BAUER Electronics
 
Last edited:

Trevor

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
4,513
Points
113
A few things to point out...

  1. You assume that your LPM is ABSOLUTE 100% ACCURATE. It is only rated to within 3% - and the Ophir falls very close to it. That's prettymuch an indicator that the Ophir sensor is just as accurate, not that it is inaccurate.
  2. So you're saying that ARGLaser, danefex, and several other members simply imagined their LaserBee reading much lower than Ophir sensors?
Lastly...

How do we know you didn't tamper with the LaserBee and falsify the results? Or fabricate this test entirely? Given recent events it would not surprise me.http://laserpointerforums.com/f70/laserbees-third-party-software-80652.html

Trevor
 
Last edited:

ARG

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
6,987
Points
113
As most of you are aware the accuracy of our LaserBee Products
has once again been called into question. This time by ARGLaser.

When ARGLaser first mentioned (in Dec 2012) his Electrical Noise
Issues and reading inaccuracies here...

http://laserpointerforums.com/f70/laserbee-vs-ophir-what-78777.html

we immediately offered to have his LaserBee II sent back to
us and we would check what the problem might be. ARGLaser
decided (for some unknown reason) not to accept our offer.

On Feb 18 that same 9 month old LaserBee II was put up for
sale and we bought it back so that we could correct any possible
problems with our design if that was the case.

The LaserBee II had been well cared for except for a finger mark
on the front of the Heatsink. The Thermopile sensor's coating was
still pristine with no marks on it at all.
The recorded Calibration value associated with the Serial number
had not been changed.
All the tests below were performed with ARGlaser's LaserBee II
exactly as received.

Then we saw this Thread..........

Accuracy of LaserBee products

These tests have taken almost 2 days to compile data so bear with
me...


THE 10-15% INACCURACY CLAIMS

It was originally claimed that the LB-II that ARGLaser had in his posession
was tested by him to be reading ~10% low. Later that percentage jumped
to 12% low and recently that number was increased again by ARGLaser to
possibly be off by 15%...










THE MARIOMASTER OPHIR TEST

Here is a pic of the test MM did on ARGLaser's OPHIR Head although
I don't see the OPHIR head in question.


It seems quite accurate and the OPHIR head only reads low
by 0.5% on the snipped Pro's screen.

It is no be noted that the minimum on the Pro shows to be
0mW. ARGLaser has stated many times that his OPHIR head
only goes down to +7mW. (More on this later).






TEST EQUIPMENT USED

We purchased a Brand New Coherent FieldMax II TO a few months
ago directly from Coherent. We had no contacts at Coherent so we
got no special treatment or special deals. It cost us more than $2000.00
by the time we got it into our hands.

- NIST Traceable Coherent FieldMax II TO Laser Power Meter
- Coherent 30 Watt Thermopile Head
- recently calibrated NewPort 1825C Laser Power Meter
- Newport 10 Watt Thermopile Head
- New OPHIR 20C head (reads 0.00mV after 15 min powered warmup)
- Opto Power Corp 40 Amp Laser Diode Driver (for test Laser)
- Fluke DMM
- Isolated and Regulated split rail Power Supply (for OPHIR Head)




ACCURACY OF COHERENT FIELDMAX TO NEWPORT








ACCURACY OF NEWPORT TO OUR UNTOUCHED OPHIR





Charted Data

Newport mW...... OPHIR mW...... %ERROR

0177mW................0182mW.............+2.8%
0645mW................0663mW.............+2.7%
1340mW................1371mW.............+2.3% (Pics above)
1984mW................2022mW.............+1.9%
2670mW................2711mW.............+1.5%
3400mW................3457mW.............+1.6%
4160mW................4240mW.............+1.9%
5120mW................5220mW.............+1.9% (Pics above)

As can be seen the OPHIR values fall into the stated 3% accuracy
of the OPHIR heads but read on the HIGH side.

ACCURACY OF ARG's OLD LASERBEE II TO NEWPORT











Charted Data

Newport mW...... ARG's LB-II mW...... %ERROR

0153mW.....................0154mW................+0.6%
0497mW.....................0502mW................+1.0%
0500mW.....................0505mW................+1.0%
1340mW.....................1358mW................+1.3% (Pics above)
1507mW.....................1540mW................+2.1%
1886mW.....................1914mW................+1.4% (Pics above)
2513mW.....................2558mW................+1.7%
3110mW.....................3148mW................+1.2%

As can be seen ARGLaser's old LaserBee II is still in spec
and is still very well calibrated over it's range.
It is to be noted that it reads on the HIGH side.

CLAIMED RADIATING ELECTRICAL FIELD NOISE ISSUES

We performed a few tests with electrical transmitting devices
we had in the shop and could not introduce and readable jitter
on the LCD display while holding a stable Laser onto the
Thermopile sensor of ARG's LaserBee II...

The Transmitting devices were held at the locations shown
in the Picture as close as possible to force a deviation in
Laser power being read on the LB-II's LCD.



Charted Data

Transmitting Device......................Deviations in mW


315MHz KeyChain Remote.................Zero Deviations
433MHz KeyChain Remote.................Zero Deviations
27MHz 100mW R/C Xmitter.................Zero Deviations
72MHz 100mW R/C Xmitter.................Zero Deviations
75MHz 100mW R/C Xmitter.................Zero Deviations
2.4GHz 100mW R/C Xmitter................Zero Deviations
iPhone (making call)..........................Zero Deviations

It is to be noted that the R/C Transmitters have enough output power that
they can transmit a usable R/C signal for over a mile.


TEST CONCLUSIONS

From the Tests above we can't see any of the LOW reading issues claimed
by ARGLaser...
It is obviously clear to us that the LaserBee II in question is still calibrated
and as accurate as it was when it left the shop ~9 months ago...
And from the info above the LaserBee in question does NOT read LOW
against a professional LPM but slightly HIGH.

That would infer that ARGLaser's calibration standard for his new LPMs
could possibly be ~17% Higher than it should be..

The OPHIR Heads seem to increase in error the Lower you go in Power.
It was also shown that the OPHIR heads in general read a bit higher
than even our NIST traceable Coherent FieldMax II TO. We've noticed
that many times before.

We have also seen that MarioMaster powering ARGLaser's OPHIR head
with the better quality and higher cost Split Supply of the PRO seemed
to Zero out as shown on the Pro's display minimum reading.

ARGLaser's OPHIR Head in question only seems to exhibit this +7mW
Zero condition when ARGLaser powers it up. I wonder if he powers it
up with his new unregulated OPHIR head Power supply chip. There may
be a problem there.

We were not able to induce any electrical noise into ARGLaser's LB-II.
We were also not willing to zap it with a 120Volt arc or a Jacobs Ladder
output.

Perhaps ARGLasers's OPHIR head had been tampered with at one point
and is no longer linear or correctly calibrated over it's range.

Perhaps ARGLaser damaged the electronics of the OPHIR head while
designing his OPHIR PS as Kenom had done in the past with some of
his OPHIR heads.

We know that some members have heads that are off by 15%. There
was a Thread about that which posed the possibility that someone
may have tampered with the 3 pots on the PCB inside the OPHIR
heads of that Thread.

My concerns are that if ARGLaser is selling LPMs that have been calibrated
with a calibration standard that is defective or not correct all his LPMs
will have calibration issues no matter how much he does any 3000 point
"Curve Adjustments"....

BTW.... the latest catch phrase seems to be "Curve Adjustment".
We call it "Non Linear Error Correction" and has been implemented in all
LaserBee LPM Products in one form or another for the past 5 years,

Perhaps the problem lies at the source of the inaccuracy claims....

If you want to compare our LaserBee LPM Products to some LPM
standard then compare it against a Professional LPM..... We do...

At this point we feel that you should have perhaps kept your Deluxe
LaserBee II and use it for your Calibration source...

POST SCRIPT

I believe that some of the members here have forgotten that even
our LaserBee LPM Products are geared to the Hobbyist market.

We don't claim to sell professional grade commercial LPMs and we
don't compete with true professional LPM ciompanies like OPHIR...
NewPort or Coherent.


Jerry
J.BAUER Electronics
lasersbee said:
When ARGLaser first mentioned (in Dec 2012) his Electrical Noise
Issues and reading inaccuracies here...

http://laserpointerforums.com/f70/laserbee-vs-ophir-what-78777.html

we immediately offered to have his LaserBee II sent back to
us and we would check what the problem might be. ARGLaser
decide (for some unknown reason) to to accept our offer.
I declined the offer to get the problems checked out because I have an Ophir LPM that I recently had tested against a against a NIST traceable Coherent FieldMax II TO and didn't want to pay 40$ shipping to send it to you and have it sent back. :)

lasersbee said:
Allegations of LaseerBee Product Inaccuracy by ARGLaser
Please note the allegations of the LB products inaccuracy was not just about all your TEC based LPM's but also included the inacurracy of the HLPM I received that is reading 70% high, but that is waiting upon 3rd party data before it goes further.

lasersbee said:
It was originally claimed that the LB-II that ARGLaser had in his posession
was tested by him to be reading ~10% low. Later that percentage jumped
to 12% low and recently that number was increased again by ARGLaser to
possibly be off by 15%...
The claims I made about the inaccuracy was that it was reading approximetly 10% low (as I could not get a good reading from the LBII due to the noise), I was consistent in the 10% claim once I had the proper data from my Ophir LPM with a stable laser. You are mistaken about the 15% off claim. The LB power meter was not reading 15% low, my claim was that if you do not individually curve adjust your TEC based LPM's they have the potential to read up to 15% low or high; the third quote you have there is out of context, I was not referring to my LBII being 15% off.

lasersbee said:
THE MARIOMASTER OPHIR TEST
You are also mistaken about the test MarioMaster did on my Ophir, I don't know why you think that image is from my head, that's clearly a kenometer in the top left hand corner, and I have never owned a kenometer. That image of the Ophir head you have is not my Ophir head, that is a Kenometer from the last thread where the LB acurracy was in question. :beer: It's from 2011, before I even bought the Ophir head I have now.
It's strange that the results are so uneven, did you make sure to position the beam in the exact center of the sensor? I find this to be quite important in regards to getting the best accuracy since the Ophir heads do seem to vary quite a bit in readings if the beam is not placed in the same spot.

My head seems to be pretty much spot on :shrug:

Also, about the +7mW from my testing that is dependent on the voltage. When both rails are around 8V it zeros out perfectly, when they are at 7V, which is what I usually run my Ophir head with it readings 7mV.

lasersbee said:
ACCURACY OF NEWPORT TO OUR UNTOUCHED OPHIR
Out of curiosity what do the two rails on your Ophir read when they are under load? (Ophir powered on and taking a reading)

lasersbee said:
Charted Data

Transmitting Device......................Deviations in mW


315MHz KeyChain Remote.................Zero Deviations
433MHz KeyChain Remote.................Zero Deviations
27MHz 100mW R/C Xmitter.................Zero Deviations
72MHz 100mW R/C Xmitter.................Zero Deviations
75MHz 100mW R/C Xmitter.................Zero Deviations
2.4GHz 100mW R/C Xmitter................Zero Deviations
iPhone (making call)..........................Zero Deviations
I don't see a switching PSU on the noise testing. The electrical field noise issues only showed themselves around a couple large, and likely unshielded power supplies I have.
Did you test it around a large switching power supply?
I wouldn't expect any of the above devices to generate noise in the laserbee since I never experiened it myself. I certaintly never said that cellphones, RC transmittters or Keychain remotes were problematic; my problems was with power supplies near the LB while taking readings.
It does pick up noise though, this graph is from a diode laser and the behaviour it shows is much unlike a diode laser which leads be to believe it's noise. Especially because the issues were minimized when I put the LB under my table where all the PSU's were. Also, when testing the LB that got me to my 10% of conclusion there were slight variations in the LB's power reading, whereas the Ophir read it as being perfectly stable.


I believe your claims of my test gear being off are not well founded considering my Ophir head was tested against the same standards you yourself have tested against.
My Ophir was also tested against a NIST traceable Coherent FieldMax II TO, the calibration on the Ophir head is fine.
From my own testing slightly unbalanced rails will not change the readings I got, the voltage imput does not change the readings, and differing zeroing voltage does not change the readings.
Also from my testing (as stated above) the zeroing is dependant on the voltage the Ophir head recieves. Mariomaster tested this with a lambda 12V +/- PSU and the zeroing was at 11mV, which contributes to my results that show the zeroing is dependant on the voltage. The 11mV for zeroing was accounted for in his measurements, since then the three potentiometers in the back of the Ophir head have not been modified.
Also, when Blord got his Ophir I believed it zeroed at -6mV, and it read within spec to his LB 2.5W USB when the zeroing was factored in.
More eveidence from another user to back up the zeroing results I got.
Just a quick comment about the Ophir resting mv.
I have noticed while researching info. on other owners builds and comments that from what I can tell, they range from about 3-7mv depending upon conditions. I've seen my own be show anywhere from 4-7. I would say most of the time it is 5mv at rest.
I've also done some preliminary testing running dual displays at the same time but not yet with a Fluke 87V at the same time to check for any deviation with multiple "loads" on the signal. Have only done this so far with a 200mw stable 650nm and had no deviation in mv upon switching on the second display.
Will need to redo the test with the DVM. I could run up to another 2 displays plus second Fluke 87 but there's probably no point. Really need to rerun it with at least 1W too. Not interested in interpolating the results without some more points.
My Ophir head is NOT from a kenometer and the voltage output I use is regulated.

My equipment was tested to be within calibration, so based on the above data your conclusion is likely incorrect.

Now as for what is going on here:
I test the LB, it is inaccurate.
-My test gear has been proven to be accurate against a coherent fieldmax.
You test the LB, it is accurate.
-Your test gear has been proven to be accurate against a coherent fieldmax.

The only two good explanations I can think of, is that the LB was tinkered with before you took the tests or that the noise problems I was experiencing was the only problem created the inaccuracies I was experiencing.
That or your calibration equipment is off, or my calibration equipment is off. They were tested against the same standards so I doubt either one of those is the reason for the accuracy problems.

Are your TEC based LPM's individually curve adjusted?

P.S. Will there ever be an official response to the questions and comments directed at you in the Pergerine thread? I am still curious about the imaginary damage that you think may befall the LBII's when Pergerine is reading the serial data.

EDIT: I remembered something as well. My 4.4W laser was metered with the LBII. The user I sold it to metered 4.91W. That also contributes to my results I got of the LB reading 10% low. Two people got the same results that points towards the LBII reading 10% low.

Edit:
Follow up


I received a LaserBee-A from someone who wanted me to add my v3 datalogging board to it.

With the exact same laser, untouched since the initial tests I got a reading within 2mW of the initial test on my Ophir.
This was what I got on the LaserBee-A.


LB-A 1.810W
Ophir 1.844W
LB-II 1.656W

Unlike LaserBee has suggested it now appears that the LB-II was reading incorrectly, and my Ophir head is reading correctly. That or both my Ophir, and the LB-A are reading incorrectly, which I highly doubt.
I would still like to know if the LB-II's are curve adjusted individually as I believe that's what was the result of the LB-II inaccuracy.
 
Last edited:

danefex

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
1,668
Points
63
Hi folks, if I can just restate my position for the record and before things get too nasty (which I hope they dont BTW, I'm with Seoul on keeping the peace while exploring/solving problems) - my LPM is almost 2 yrs old and likely needs recalibration. I've used it dozens upon dozens of times, several of which haven't yielded perfect readings due to environmental conditions, misaligned laser measuring weathering the sensor, ect ect....

My suspicion and claims of inaccuracy here are in no way an offensive or attack against Jerry, his products, knowledge or his credibility. Please understand my neutral position when I say this! I am happy to see some very educated people scrutinizing all of this as I know the outcome benefits all of us - but personally I'm only stating that my LB II is in need of some service & tuning. With all the heavy use I've gotten from my LPM, I'm honestly surprised it hasn't shit down on me months ago from all the use + my modifying it to fit in acrylic casing, ect.

I appreciate AND feel privileged for what is in question, what is being done about it and how it will help with the equipment I rely on - but in no way am I taking any sides to any brewing arguments or hostility. If there are unrelated differences that distract anyone from identifying a potential problem and resolving it with this equipment, please know I have no active contribution to those matters ;)

:beer:
 

Meatball

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,989
Points
0
I don't know about anyone else, but for me these new LPM threads popping up have been very good for me to read - I've learned a TON in the past week. This thread serves the same purpose. Ultimately, its a business vs. open source debate which needs to be settled by those with the proper tools and know-how.

I'm just glad to benefit by this long discussion. Thanks all!
 

Flaminpyro

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
5,462
Points
113
Dan will you quit beating up on every one, your going to get a bad rep :crackup:
 

Livinloud

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
5,047
Points
0
I don't know about anyone else, but for me these new LPM threads popping up have been very good for me to read - I've learned a TON in the past week. This thread serves the same purpose. Ultimately, its a business vs. open source debate which needs to be settled by those with the proper tools and know-how.

I'm just glad to benefit by this long discussion. Thanks all!
I completely agree!!! I was looking at the LB 2.5W USB and buying one in the future and have definitely learned a TON from these recent threads by both Jerry and ARG. Thank you both for making this information available to use as a learning source. although i do understand both sides and their individual concerns, im glad it is being investigated. IMO everyone will win in the end because if there truly is a problem, it will be found and fixed. if there is not a problem then it is a great learning tool.

:thanks: for putting this vast amount of LPM information out there, both Jerry and ARG. i am not taking anyone's side since i read these purely as informational tools
 
Last edited:

Seoul_lasers

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
2,490
Points
83
I completely agree!!! I was looking at the LB 2.5W USB and buying one in the future and have definitely learned a TON from these recent threads by both Jerry and ARG. Thank you both for making this information available to use as a learning source. although i do understand both sides and their individual concerns, im glad it is being investigated. IMO everyone will win in the end because if there truly is a problem, it will be found and fixed. if there is not a problem then it is a great learning tool.

:thanks: for putting this vast amount of LPM information out there, both Jerry and ARG. i am not taking anyone's side since i read these purely as informational tools
Well, there isn't actually a problem with the design of the Laserbee nor the new 3rd party software "Peregrine". It's just that some people think that others are out to get them.
I'd be nice for some civil discussion to take place soon.. but until then :pop:
 
Last edited:

Multimode

New member
Joined
Feb 10, 2012
Messages
330
Points
0
Interesting to read.
I'll throw smething out there about my observation as a bystander.

There is lots of talk about the test LPMs being calibrated to national standards, which is good.
However, the test method and set up appears to vary.
Jerry has a large lens (I think) between the laser and LPM, it's mounted on various packing pieces.
What was the Arg laser set up? What were the distances between laser and sensor....
What is the calibration method Coherent use to measure the op of their lasers, should we be using the same?

If we're talking a few % here and there, then we should all be using the same set up.

I know how sensitive LPMs are, the heat from my hand can offset a reading, so the heat from a laser heat sink could also skew the reading, if the distace is too close or different.
Jerry has a lens, what did Arg and the others use?

To me albeit with no where near the experience of Jerry of Arg, I see no standard test method or experimantal setup?

No critisism guys, like everyone else, I'd like to see a full and agreed answer to all this, and if my comments help in any way, then great. If the above is a load of tosh, then thats fine with me too:beer:

ATB to all
MM
 

ARG

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
6,987
Points
113
@Multimode
This was my set up MultiMode:

The lens there is bolted down in front of the diode, the laser was moved instead of the sensors so the heat from my hand did not throw off readings.
In the image the laser was about 25-30cm away from the sensors, the correct distance outlined in the LBII user manual IIRC.
My readings of 10% low were taken at 1.8W.

The laser is the same wavelength Jerry used 808nm, even though spectrum of laser shouldn't change the readings because IIRC Jerry claims his LPM's to be spectrally flat. :crackup: The other professional LPM's don't claim as much though so it was better that we use the same wavelength.
 

Meatball

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,989
Points
0
@Multimode
This was my set up MultiMode:

The lens there is bolted down in front of the diode, the laser was moved instead of the sensors so the heat from my hand did not throw off readings.
In the image the laser was about 25-30cm away from the sensors, the correct distance outlined in the LBII user manual IIRC.
My readings of 10% low were taken at 1.8W.

The laser is the same wavelength Jerry used 808nm, even though spectrum of laser shouldn't change the readings because IIRC Jerry claims his LPM's to be spectrally flat. :crackup: The other professional LPM's don't claim as much though so it was better that we use the same wavelength.
Was the claim about the TEC coating? Or the meter's end response?

For all intensive purposes, isn't the "non-linear offset" designed to do this?

If the claim is about the meter's end response - that's reasonable to say if response has be compensated to produced a flat response, even when the coating has no such thing.
 

Trevor

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
4,513
Points
113
Was the claim about the TEC coating? Or the meter's end response?

For all intensive purposes, isn't the "non-linear offset" designed to do this?

If the claim is about the meter's end response - that's reasonable to say if response has be compensated to produced a flat response, even when the coating has no such thing.
Jerry claims that the TEC coating is uniformly absorptive across the visible spectrum, and ostensibly into IR to some degree.

This has not been proven by him or any third party.

Trevor
 

Bionic-Badger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
5,478
Points
83
I love competition. It benefits everyone. I'm also pleased to see people questioning the accuracy of meters, for the sake of ensuring and verifying accuracy.

Great stuff!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.




Top