Bomb Price: 405nm AR glass dual layer/lens fit AX/DX

[Krutz]

Hi Alx,

sounds really good! i cant wait, very curious! i hope it all turns out nicely. it surely sounds like you do it with little compromise, all from scratch, to have it the best possible! yay!

thanks for the updates!

manuel

 

[Mohrenberg]

yeah if you could get them for that price then an AR coated lens would be mandatory on almost any laser...
i hope this works out cause i'm def. interested.

 

[robjdixon]

Call me stupid, but I can't see a price mentioned? Is there one?

 

[k1kb0t]

I read 20 Euros in the first post but I'm note sure if that is correct.

Jon

 

[alx]

All right guys,

Here comes lens pics.

 

[alx]

tested this lens on booth laser types: red and blue.

blue------axplastic---this_lens
laser1---107/110mw---137/142mw
laser2---101/102mw---132mw
--------reference----------+30%

red-------axplastic---axglass---this_lens---this_lens_with_correction_ring
laser3-----132--------138-------157---------151
--------reference----+4.5%----+20%------+14.5%
laser4-----172--------177-------202---------191
--------reference-----+3%------+17.5%---+11%

till here, as expected!

I have also 3 aged lasers (2 from ggw, and one from phr). all are between 18mw up to 36mw with ax plastic lens.

using this glass lens, all these lasers, goes over 85mw!!!!! see below the table!

---------------AXPlastic-----This_Lens---
L5(aged PHR) - 17.8/18mw - 84.2/84.8mw
L6(aged GGW) - 32.5 - 98.6/100mW
L7(aged GGW) - 35.5 - 118/119!
WOW. over 3 times more!!!!!

on all tests above, ax plastic has been with back opened!

increase in power
-----------------

for blue: over/around 30%, depending by light source/quality
- newer (not aged) PHR diodes: 100-110mw with AX plastic vs 130-140mw with this lens (around 30% more)
- aged phr diodes: 17-37mw with AX plastic vs 80-100mw or more with this lens (over 3-4 times more!!!). Yes, is true, because in this case diode is weak -> lower disperssion

for red: over/around 20%, depending by light source/quality
- newer (not aged) LPC diodes: 131 with AX plastic, 157-158mw with this lens (around 20%)
- for aged lpc diodes, probably will be something similar with above PHR aged diodes (few times more)

all above, measured with coherent lasercheck power metter.

 

[alx]

Output shape
------------

- good. see some picture attached
- strictly dependent by source of light (shape of source - our diodes are not round, are flat round, dispersions - our diode will produce a lot and is nothing to do here, diode aligned on axis or wrong mounted inside AX/DX case).

the output shape is similar with those produced by other lens we are using. here are 2 snapshoots, one without correction ring, one with correction ring. look very similar with red.

note1: I have some diodes, which has not been mounted perfectly inside AX/DX case (are not aligned on vertical/horizontal axis/canvas/plan). This thing is not visible with your free eye, just looking to the diode, but with the same lens, this pointers will produce an ugly spot (collimated/uncollimated) compared with my last pointers, which has been better build. Correction ring will tell you the truth (read below, to see/understand what it is).

note2: I used 2 digital cameras to take snapshoots. pictures here are taken with first one!

 

[alx]

Removable Correction Ring (read this/very important)
----------------------------------------------------

The idea is simple: i will not add another lens inside instrument case (to expensive) to correct the output, but ... at lower cost, I can add a ring on output, much cheaper, if the actual lens/design allow/support this feature.

For those paranoids, which want a better shape, exist this option: removable correction ring for this lens!

Don't be laid about false idea, regarding power loss when you are decreasing the aperture of this instrument case ... this ring has been designed for this unit (instrument case + lens) and normally, will cut off un-needed/garbage light. attenuation should be under 7% (as average).

Pros:
- a better output shape (at lower costs than other complicated/expensive solutions)
- can be removed anytime you want!
- use it when you are collimating at shorter distances (few meters away)
Cons: practically, will decrease the output with 6-8% (because we are mounting diode manually, and will not be perfect aligned)

For example:
- the red pointer above, 131mw AX plastic, 157mw ALX glass, will produce 151mW with ALX glass with correction ring. Does it mean, 5.5% less output power.
- the blue pointer, which above proced 110mw with AX plastic and 140++mW with this lens, will produce 131mW with attached correction ring but better output shape. Does it mean, 8% less output power.

Is this decrease (6-7% less), a real loose? Will affect energy used by my pointer? In our scenario, I don't think so. Why?

As you can see from pictures attached, the spot produced by other lens (AX/plastic, AX glass, etc), are not round and is a lot of other light near the spot. Does it mean that when you are measuring the output power and put your LPM in front of your pointer (laser diode), you are measuring .... let say a total: usefull energy + some energy near your round spot. From this total, only a part will be usefull.

Cutting off SOME FROM THIS unneeded energy around dirty spot (controlling the output of the unit) will not affect the power of your pointer (because there, inside spot, energy remain unchanged). You will count a decrease in total power, but this will be against dispersion and not against the real power of your pointer. Of course, optimal is to find a way to be able to use entire power (using more optics, other light sources, etc) - not an option for us due to its higher costs.

Also, this ring (together with my unit) is a good method to test quickly, if your diode is mounted correctly inside your AX/DX case. Just use it, and if you are getting more than ... let say 10% attenuation, you have definitely a bad mounted diode inside your housing module or a really a bad laser diode (defective radiation shape). Don't expect miracles. Nobody can help you!

Ring price? I really don't know. I ordered just 2 rings for me (has not been cheap). Also, AX/DX rings are not the same/standard, and will be very difficult to design a patch for those rings here. I will produce it here. And... that is the reason I don't know the cost. Factory which designed above unit (instrument case + lens) is very expensive due to its quality. Also, till now, our main target has been the lens and instrument case, not this gadget. We will see in the next weeks, how things are going regarding this ring.

 

[alx]

other pictures, output spot!

pictures below, are taken with first digital camera (not so complicated as the second one, easy to use). with this camera, i was able to snapshoot the FLAT ROUND shape of our pointers spot. as you will see, is not round at all, is flat round, due to diode shape behind. all blue/red pointers has this shape. with your free eye, you will be able to see this flat shape better on RED pointers, but blue are the same! look carefully on red pictures, easy to observe differences on red than on blue! as you will see, all shapes are similar, but this glass lens will be more accurate on details than other used (better visible on images taken with second camera, attached after this post).

take a look at each name of each picture attached, to understand what it is (last 2 pictures are with ax/dx plastic lens)!

 

[alx]

here, is pictures comparing this glass lens (output image/spot) versus other lens. pictures has been taken with second camera (more complicated than first one, difficult to use).

has been used 3 lens:
- ax plastic (back closed)
- ax plastic (back opened)
- ax glass
- this glass lens
- this glass lens with correction ring

as you will see, this lens is showing on output image, more details related to the source of light.

 

[alx]

here comes:

- ax plastic (back closed)
- ax plastic (back opened)

don't look only to the output shape. look at the wall...is a lot of red light around the spot ... far away of it... this is bad, and normal (is an uncoated lens). all knows its poorer quality.

 

[alx]

here comes:

- ax glass

here, things are better than on plastic version, but still a lot of dispersion around the spot (spread it on the wall) and worst transmittance. even it has coatings, this one is very bad... the red zone is not at all delimited ...and all light will spread the same like for ax plastic lens. I think better is to keep using first one (ax plastic)... this one not worth more money for almost the same quality.

 

[alx]

here comes:

- this glass lens
- this glass lens with correction ring

in this images, we are able to see:
- very clear the shape of source of light (laser diode)
- the dark zone around is very clear (not diffuse) and we are not having other remanent red zone outside dark zone. this prove coatings and better instrument case design. see below a picture of other plastic lens (not ax/dx lens) with coatings but pure quality, to understand what I am referring here about alternation between black and red zone!

 

[alx]

here comes another plastic lens (coated), better than ax/dx lens above, but pure quality too...

after red spot, comes a short diffuse ring in red, followed by a dark zone, followed again by a red zone, and again a dark zone... which is not good ...

 

[alx]

here comes some pictures taken inside a room (second digital camera), normal illumination conditions, with this glass lens.

 

[alx]

here comes some pictures taken on stairs (second digital camera), less illumination than inside my room, same lens, same pointer.