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



Inacccuracy of LaserBee products

pschlosser

New member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
909
Points
0
I believe that Jerry uses some sort of automotive paint (perhaps for break callipers) that comes out as a powder and is baked on in an oven, or partially baked in this case.
As in the oven I have in my kitchen? Does he use the oven in his kitchen? that seems so... garage band. :thinking:
 

Meatball

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,989
Points
0
I believe that Jerry uses some sort of automotive paint (perhaps for break callipers) that comes out as a powder and is baked on in an oven, or partially baked in this case.

The ideal thing to use for the sensors would be thin black ceramic plates, but those are difficult to source.
As for velvet, are you talking about the fabric?
Why yes. Yes I am. Or at least, something similar to it. A thin, black velvet is often used as a border on walls where a movie projector would shine. The velvet edges on the screen have the highest absorption - in that any over-spill from the projector image, lands on the velvet border and get absorbed, producing a very clean cutoff edge for the image.

Whatever lands on the border, isn't seen at all - not even by the brightest of projectors.

I just noticed the gray-fuzzy-thin-velvet on the surface of most thermopiles, and decided that it was of course, genius. If you get a good look at the sensors' front and back, you find that this velvet stuff is stuck on the aluminum plate (holding the junctions - usually in a circle) with a thin layer of glue or cement.

DIY thermopiles anyone? I'll play.
 
Last edited:

ARG

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
6,987
Points
113
Why yes. Yes I am. Or at least, something similar to it. A thin, black velvet is often used as a border on walls where a movie projector would shine. The velvet edges on the screen have the highest absorption - in that any over-spill from the projector image, lands on the velvet border and get absorbed, producing a very clean cutoff edge for the image.

Whatever lands on the border, isn't seen at all - not even by the brightest of projectors.

I just noticed the gray-fuzzy-thin-velvet on the surface of most thermopiles, and decided that it was of course, genius. If you get a good look at the sensors' front and back, you find that this velvet stuff is stuck on the aluminum plate (holding the junctions - usually in a circle) with a thin layer of glue or cement.

DIY thermopiles anyone? I'll play.
Neat! I assume this is a special kind of velvet, do you know where it can be bought? I'm definitely interested in looking into this.

As in the oven I have in my kitchen? Does he use the oven in his kitchen? that seems so... garage band. :thinking:
Some kind of oven at any rate, to heat up the powder. I touched part of the heatsink (not sensor) that was coated with the paint and it came off in the same way that half-baked brake calliper paint I tested for TEC's came off, so I assume he bakes his paint.
 

Meatball

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,989
Points
0
Neat! I assume this is a special kind of velvet, do you know where it can be bought? I'm definitely interested in looking into this.

Some kind of oven at any rate, to heat up the powder. I touched part of the heatsink (not sensor) that was coated with the paint and it came off in the same way that half-baked brake calliper paint I tested for TEC's came off, so I assume he bakes his paint.
If the heatsink is anodized, there might be few paints in general that would actually adhere to it.

You can actually google "projector screen velvet" and you get brand names like "true black" and whatnot. The stuff is common and abundantly available in many varieties I'm sure. Its not very cheap at all, but you get a lot per roll.

The trick is finding the stuff with the shortest possible fibers - to mimic the Ophir fuzz. The purpose of the fuzz is not solely the absorption of light, but the collection of it against the front metal surface of the thermopile disk..
that disk with the ring of thermocouples arranged in a single series connection. We need to heat that - not necessarily the velvet.

The fuzz is there to "trap" the light - ensure its high possibility of being absorbed while being so closely coupled to the metal disk.
 

HitShane

Active member
Joined
Nov 30, 2012
Messages
696
Points
28
If the heatsink is anodized, there might be few paints in general that would actually adhere to it.

You can actually google "projector screen velvet" and you get brand names like "true black" and whatnot. The stuff is common and abundantly available in many varieties I'm sure. Its not very cheap at all, but you get a lot per roll.

The trick is finding the stuff with the shortest possible fibers - to mimic the Ophir fuzz. The purpose of the fuzz is not solely the absorption of light, but the collection of it against the front metal surface of the thermopile disk..
that disk with the ring of thermocouples arranged in a single series connection. We need to heat that - not necessarily the velvet.

The fuzz is there to "trap" the light - ensure its high possibility of being absorbed while being so closely coupled to the metal disk.
Not more surface area...?
 

Seoul_lasers

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
2,496
Points
83
I'm not saying all laserbee's are off Seoul, no two TEC's are the same so the curve adjustments will not be the same unit to unit, there will be some good units and some bad units. DTR also has a good LBII unit that reads the same as his Ophir, as I said above this wont affect all units, only some units.

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%.

Also, this thread isn't just about the TEC based LB's, the optical LB's appear to be off by as much as 70% as well :(
My laserbee is ~10 months old. I had no idea that optical laserbees even factored into our discussion. I missed that part.
 
Last edited:

lasersbee

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
17,600
Points
113
LBII

The set up with my stable 808nm laser. (The same wavelength used to calibrate the laserbee's IIRC)

The Ophir reading (Minus 7 mV for zeroing)


The laserbee II reading:



HLPM
I also received a used HLPM recently.
This test was done with a pen laser as I don't have a lab style 405nm laser.
Ophir reading: 45mV (minus 7 for zeroing) so 38mW.
The Laserbee II read 35mW.
The HLPM read 4.4mV, and according to the correction factor chart it should be multiplied by 23.3. 102.52mW :eek: That's 70% off!
When reading in the red spectrum it's fine, but I think the wavelength chart may be a little off.

Could any other users with an HLPM, a 405nm and another power meter confirm the results?

The HLPM's wavelength chart is most likely off, meaning that readings not in the 600-700nm spectrum will be off, I would like someone else to confirm this as my unit could be defective.
I'll respond to this HLMP II 70% off accusation here....

1) First you did not buy your HLPM II brand new from us.

2) We have had 7 iterations of our Optical LPM Module starting
with the 30mW then 60mW... 120mW... 200mW then the HLPM II
series of which we had 3 upgrades. Each of which had their own
Optical correction chart due to us finding better sensors. Only
the last 2 HLPM II iterations could test 405nm wavelengths.

We had sent out HLPM IIs and test sheets to a number of members
here to test their 405nm Lasers in the past and their data was used
to help build the Charts.

3) We have no idea when your HLPM was manufactured nor which
model it is. That could be found if we knew who purchased it and
when.

4) We have no idea if the Optical Sensor was damaged by the
previous owner. This can easily be done by applying to much
power to the sensor

5) is the chart that you are using the one supplied with that soecific
HLPM II ??

6) Have you tested your DMM as outlined in the User Instructions
with the supplied resistors to see if you require the Shunt ??

Without this information you could easily be testing an older HLPM II
that was not designed to read the 405nm wavelengths.

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%.
As to your other claims about your (now ours) LaserBee II
inaccuracy claims......
With today... we will have now spent 2 days trying to find out
where your now Claimed possible 15% Low readings on your
LaserBee II may actually come from.

I will be opening our own Thread to post our tests... results
and conclusions on your accusations of our LaserBee products
inaccuracy...
Coming soon.....


The sensor coating could also not be spectrally flat... he's said it is, but he's lied about the attributes of LaserBee products before, so it might not be.

Trevor
I must have missed that... :thinking:
Care to offer up a link......


Jerry

You can contact us at any time on our Website: J.BAUER Electronics
 
Last edited:

Seoul_lasers

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
2,496
Points
83
I just wish people on our forum could get along.
When 2 members whom have contributed so much to our forum start a
bickering contest, it serves no ones purpose and drags down the atmosphere of the forum.


:tsk::yabbem::yabbem::yabbem::tsk:
 
Last edited:

ARG

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
6,987
Points
113
1)The HLPM I received is not new, correct.
2)I'm glad to know that they were tested against multiple sources
3)I'll see if I can find that.
4)I understand the previous owner could have caused damage to the sensor, but it still reads fine in the red spectrum. Wouldn't damage to the sensor affect all the readings?
5)Yes, I have the original wavelength charts
6)Yes, my DMM is accurate.

My HLPM has 405nm on the wavelength chart, so it should be able to read in that wavelength.
I would still like another user (3rd party) to confirm/deny the results I have found with my HLPM, IIRC Kenom had similar problems with an HLPM.

As for the LBII, I await the results; though it's too late to get the tests done by a third party.

Also, Jerry I would appreciate it if you would stop beating around the bush and answer all the questions.
Are your LPM's individually curve adjusted or do you assume the same curve adjustment for every TEC?
I would also like to hear an official response to all the questions and comments in the Peregrine thread.

I just wish people on our forum could get along.
When 2 members whom have contributed so much to our forum start a
bickering contest, it serves no ones purpose and drags down the atmosphere of the forum.
I'm not trying to start anything here, I am giving voice the the inaccuracy problem I have with my laserbee's. If other people have had these problems there could be a problem with the curve adjustment/wavelength correction factor on a number of LB LPM's.
I hope all the LB products are reading accurately (which for most people they are spot on) but if there is a problem I think users/customers of LB should know, which is why I brought this into public forum.
 
Last edited:

Seoul_lasers

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
2,496
Points
83
1)The HLPM I received is not new, correct.
2)I'm glad to know that they were tested against multiple sources
3)I'll see if I can find that.
4)I understand the previous owner could have caused damage to the sensor, but it still reads fine in the red spectrum.
5)Yes, I have the original wavelength charts
6)Yes, my DMM is accurate.

My HLPM has 405nm on the wavelength chart, so it should be able to read in that wavelength.
I would still like another user (3rd party) to confirm/rebuke the results I have found with my HLPM, IIRC Kenom had similar problems with an HLPM.

As for the LBII, I await the results; though it's too late to get the tests done by a third party.

Also, Jerry I would appreciate it if you would stop beating around the bush and answer all the questions.
Are your LPM's individually curve adjusted or do you assume the same curve adjustment for every TEC?
I would also like to hear an official response to all the questions and comments in the Peregrine thread.


I'm not trying to start anything here, I am giving voice the the inaccuracy problem I have with my laserbee's. If other people have had these problems there could be a problem with the calibration on a number of LB LPM's, which other users should know about.
Fair enough. I was just commenting on the banter back and forth. This measurement stuff gets people so fired up.:angel:

Long day... time to get some sleep.

@ everyone else:
Bottom line is that Jerry's laserbee Thermophile LPMs are actually more than pretty decent, and I would buy another now that I have OSX native processing.

I have a 3.2W laserbee deluxe. It's been calibrated to measure with a degree of accuracy from IR to 400nm. I'll say it again, with fresh batteries
I can get within 3% (1.5%) of my Ophir 20C-A, which I took to Yonsei Universities laser lab in the summer. Both their Coherent LPM and my Ophir are bang on btw.
So to title a thread about the inaccuracy of Laserbee products is quite erroneous when the problem is specifically related to a used HLPM.
The title sounds like an all out attack against Jerry for not supporting Open Source. Granted I can understand some peoples frustration with his position.
Let's take it down a notch shall we and calm the f$%k down... :wave::thanks:

:wave::wave::wave:Sometimes change is difficult for people.:shhh::beer:
Here's to an Open Source future...
 
Last edited:

ARG

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
6,987
Points
113
So to title a thread about the inaccuracy of Laserbee products is quite erroneous when the problem is specifically related to a used HLPM.
The title sounds like an all out attack against Jerry for not supporting Open Source. Granted I can understand some peoples frustration with his position.
The problem is not specifically related to just the HLPM or just the TEC based bee's. It's about both the HLPM and TEC based LB's. I am still waiting on an answer about whether or not Jerry individually curve adjusts the TEC based LB's, as well as third party data about the HLPM's.

I am not at all upset with Jerry for not supporting Open Source, everyone is entitled to their opinions. That was not my motivation behind opening this thread. I would appreciate if everyone kept this thread about the facts, and keep drama out.

Other people have experienced the same issues with LB's in the past and if there is an issue I believe that it should be fixed.

As for the title, what would you have me call it instead? I posted in that other thread as I said in my first post, and it got no attention. I wanted to draw attention to the issues so I posted the thread with this title, and it drew people in.


Just so we are clear and stay on track, the purpose of this thread is to:
A) Determine if there are problems with the wavelength correction factor on the HLPM's
B) Determine if the LB's are individually curve adjusted, and if there is any problems with the curve adjustment.
C) Finding a solution if there are problems.
D) Letting the thread die if there are no problems.
 
Last edited:

Pman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
4,450
Points
113
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 2-7mv depending upon conditions. I've seen my own 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 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. The project box for the Ophir has 2 displays powered completely separate from the Ophir. The Ophir runs off (2) 9V batts while the Displays run off a 4 cell aa eneloop pack. Power supplies are isolated but not regulated. The 20C is not internally regulated. Obviously the DVM runs off its own power.
Will say that at least at this point from what I've seen messing around with different units, seeing others graphs and videos, studying the comments/posts that the likely % off of actual mw is pretty low.
Research/testing to continue....
Yes I know I swap mv/mw when I post as frankly we are talking a 1:1 ratio for all intensive purposes here.
Will also add that the TEC/Ophir or whatever really sets the accuracy range. Doesn't matter if I have a meter/display that can read .00001mv if the head units resolution can't go that low.
Suppose we should use mv for a reading but call it mw when specifically talking about a lasers output but I don't see as it matters.
Would say for those with an Ophir, it's probably not a good idea to keep connecting/disconnecting it at the head itself as I don't believe it was meant to handle this kind of stress. Suggest leaving the connector plugged in and storing it this way when not in use (just the Ophir end).
What I've learned from a friend of mine is that a proper design will allow for proper heat-sink cooling of the sensor head, while protecting the wiring from physical damage, and protecting the sensor face from thermal convection currents. This is how labs do it but for most of us that kind of accuracy/stability isn't necessary.

Just tested my stable Spartan and found no more than 2mw difference upon switching on a second display. Basically, even over 1 Watt/Volt, running a second display isn't an issue (at least with the displays I use and the way mine are powered).
 
Last edited:

Seoul_lasers

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
2,496
Points
83
The problem is not specifically related to just the HLPM or just the TEC based bee's. It's about both the HLPM and TEC based LB's. I am still waiting on an answer about whether or not Jerry individually curve adjusts the TEC based LB's, as well as third party data about the HLPM's.

I am not at all upset with Jerry for not supporting Open Source, everyone is entitled to their opinions. That was not my motivation behind opening this thread. I would appreciate if everyone kept this thread about the facts, and keep drama out.

Other people have experienced the same issues with LB's in the past and if there is an issue I believe that it should be fixed.

As for the title, what would you have me call it instead? I posted in that other thread as I said in my first post, and it got no attention. I wanted to draw attention to the issues so I posted the thread with this title, and it drew people in.


Just so we are clear and stay on track, the purpose of this thread is to:
A) Determine if there are problems with the wavelength correction factor on the HLPM's
B) Determine if the LB's are individually curve adjusted, and if there is any problems with the curve adjustment.
C) Finding a solution if there is problems, letting the thread die if there are no problems.

Sorry, like you I just want civility to rule instead of drama. I'm seriously disappointed that this is how a simple act of ingenuity has resulted in such a firestorm.
Thank you for clearing that part up about the title btw.
you certainly got peoples attention! :angel:
:beer::beer::beer::beer:
 

ARG

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
6,987
Points
113
Re: Potential Inacccuracy of LaserBee products

I agree, thanks Seoul :beer:
I should change the thread title though, you are right; it does make it sound like there is conclusive evidence of the laserbee's being inaccurate when that is not the case. :undecided:
I changed the title, does it sound better?
 
Last edited:

lasersbee

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
17,600
Points
113
Fair enough. I was just commenting on the banter back and forth. This measurement stuff gets people so fired up.:angel:

Long day... time to get some sleep.

@ everyone else:
Bottom line is that Jerry's laserbee Thermophile LPMs are actually more than pretty decent, and I would buy another now that I have OSX native processing.

I have a 3.2W laserbee deluxe. It's been calibrated to measure with a degree of accuracy from IR to 400nm. I'll say it again, with fresh batteries
I can get within 3% (1.5%) of my Ophir 20C-A, which I took to Yonsei Universities laser lab in the summer. Both their Coherent LPM and my Ophir are bang on btw.
So to title a thread about the inaccuracy of Laserbee products is quite erroneous when the problem is specifically related to a used HLPM.
The title sounds like an all out attack against Jerry for not supporting Open Source. Granted I can understand some peoples frustration with his position.
Let's take it down a notch shall we and calm the f$%k down... :wave::thanks:
If you were running for office... you would get my vote..:beer:

EDIT
@ ARGLaaser..........
As promissed here is a response to your claims on the 1st post of this
thread pertaining to your sold Deluxe LaserBee II's inaccuracies...

http://laserpointerforums.com/f70/allegations-laseerbee-product-inaccuracy-arglaser-80664.html


Jerry

You can contact us at any time on our Website: J.BAUER Electronics
 
Last edited:




Top