Inacccuracy of LaserBee products

[ARG]

@ 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

Replied

 

[nospin]

Re: Potential Inacccuracy of LaserBee products

Nothing equals a REAL thermopile!

 

[dmacrae]

Re: Potential Inacccuracy of LaserBee products

^^^ agreed. :beer: although I do miss my LBII deluxe

 

[ARG]

Follow up to this!

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.

Either way, the LB-II is inaccurate or the LB-A is inaccurate.

 

[lasersbee]

Follow up to this!

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.

Either way, the LB-II is inaccurate or the LB-A is inaccurate.

Either.....

You have finally gotten your OPHIR head recalibrated correctly...

OR

You are using another OPHIR Head

OR

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.

Trevor

all kidding aside.....:crackup::crackup:

OR more possibly...


We use the same calibrated test equipment to calibrate ALL
our LaserBee LPM products. We regularly verify the accuracy
of our test equipment to make sure that every LaserBee
product is as accurate as possible.

We now see in your pic that you are using quite a large 808nm
(nearly invisible to the human eye) Beam profile on the LaserBee A
sensor. And is impossible to see with eye protection.

It may be the correct size for such a large sensor but is way too
large to precisely fit on the small 10mm X 10mm Sensor of a
LaserBee II.

The camera pic probably also shows the actual beam profile
size smaller than it actually is.

It is highly possible that you did not get the entire beam profile
onto the LaserBee II's sensor and therefore read only a part
of the beam profile and hence read low on your tests.

We use a beam profile of 2-3mm to male sure that the ENTIRE
beam profile falls on any sensor we use or test.

I would suggest that you upgrade your test equipment to something
more suitable for precise testing... we have...:beer:


Jerry

 

[ARG]

We use the same calibrated test equipment to calibrate ALL
our LaserBee LPM products. We regularly verify the accuracy
of our test equipment to make sure that every LaserBee
product is as accurate as possible.

We now see in your pic that you are using quite a large 808nm
(nearly invisible to the human eye) Beam profile on the LaserBee A
sensor. And is impossible to see with eye protection.

It may be the correct size for such a large sensor but is way too
large to precisely fit on the small 10mm X 10mm Sensor of a
LaserBee II.

The camera pic probably also shows the actual beam profile
size smaller than it actually is.

It is highly possible that you did not get the entire beam profile
onto the LaserBee II's sensor and therefore read only a part
of the beam profile and hence read low on your tests.

We use a beam profile of 2-3mm to male sure that the ENTIRE
beam profile falls on any sensor we use or test.

I would suggest that you upgrade your test equipment to something
more suitable for precise testing... we have...

My Ophir head has the same factory calibration since when I got it.
As I said many times before I got it verified by MarioMaster's Fieldmax before both tests and it was reading accurately with his fieldmax, my Ophir has never been off calibration and it is the same Ophir head from the other tests.
Explain to me how my Ophir is off calibration for any of these tests if it read within 1% of a Coherent Fieldmax?

I do not believe that I didn't have the entire laser on the sensor as I also noticed the discrepancy between readings with a 445nm laser here. I am positive the entire beam for both the 445nm tests and the 808nm test was on the sensor.
http://laserpointerforums.com/f70/laserbee-vs-ophir-what-78777.html
Also note that the laser was closer for the LB-II tests so that the entire beam was on the sensor.

Though I do not have any picture or evidence of it I also noted that handheld lasers read around 10% low as well.
Also when I metered my dual diode laser at 4.4W on the LBII then sold it the person I sold it to metered 4.9W.

As for your recommendation I will be upgrading my Ophir to a Coherent Fieldmax soon enough, to remove any doubt of accuracy. However, my current equipment is suitable for this application.