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

Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations

Links below open in new window

FrozenGate by Avery

O-Like 150mW module review

RA_pierce said:
Nice review.
May I ask how you calculated divergence?
I have purchased several modules from O-like, and while the divergence is not as great as I would like it, I've never had one that was absolutely unacceptable (usually within 1.2-1.5mRad).

I think the modules are manufactured this way so that their burning abilities are impressive up close. This way, the average un-experienced hobbyist will feel like their module is more powerful.
Edit: Regarding power output, I have found that the 130-150mW modules generally output at least 110mW of pure green. I have one here that outputs 140mW+ un-filtered and about 110mW filtered on 3V CR123A. Not bad at all, in my opinion.

Don't be too disappointed... remember that we buy from O-like and similar companies because they provide cheap power and good customer service, NOT because the products are exceptional in every aspect.
The rule still applies here, you get what you pay for, and in this case, you are paying a decent price for a decent module.
And every now and then, a bad unit is produced. That is unavoidable.
Click to expand...
Well said, I agree 100%.

I am trying to integrate a 200mW green module into my budget plan... it won't be anytime soon, but when it will, I will order it from o-like for sure.

:beer:
 





RA_pierce said:
...and while the divergence is not as great as I would like it, I've never had one that was absolutely unacceptable (usually within 1.2-1.5mRad)...
Click to expand...
1.2-1.5mrad? wow! My two O-Like modules both measured 2.0. 1.2 is not "not bad", it's great! What do you consider great divergence... :thinking:
 
Traveller said:
1.2-1.5mrad? wow! My two O-Like modules both measured 2.0. 1.2 is not "not bad", it's great! What do you consider great divergence... :thinking:
Click to expand...

Well, my first green, a Galileo 3 from Laserglow, had 0.7mRad divergence or something low... can't remember exactly.
My PGL has 0.8mRad divergence, a LEDshoppe 50 I modified with CNI crystals and coated optics had 0.7mRad divergence... I think those are/were the best divergence greens I've ever seen.
These measurements were taken at around 48-50 feet using the method Laserglow has written up on their site and double checked with the pseudonomen calculator.
 
ReNNo said:
The only reason why I bought 150mW module and not 100mW is because of beam picture on laser description on old O-like web page (Uploaded by costumer).
Beam looked very good with very, very good divergence.

And I also remember text review under laser description that says that dot is very small at end of street.

I got two modules with 2.3mRad + divergence and how it's possible that someone bought module with sensibly better divergence?

Why would Susie send me another module with bad divergence if I asked her to set divergence on the best value and glue it.
She also told me to wait few days so manufactory can finish "new" 150mW modules that are with better divergence.
I waited, and this "new" module has better divergence (2.3mRad).
I can't even imagine what was divergence of old module .... 3mRad +
Click to expand...

That was jayrob's pic
 
mfo said:
The divergence don't look that bad dude....maybe the pic's don't do it justice idk. Anyhow, if you have laser safety glasses, you can easily calculate the mRad yourself.

pseudonomen137's JScript mRad Calculator
Click to expand...

5 posts up, man!
He already used it and linked it to us.

But I have to agree that the divergence on the pictures does not look bad at all.
However he said that in person, beam visibly get real fat and the dot on the other side of the street is really big.
I dunno, could be his bad luck... :D
 
Yeah on pictures beam doesn't look bad because of focus.
But in reality it's worse.

@ZRTMWA
I would like to see some comments by jayrob .
 
Uhm, about break the glue for self-adjust the lens ..... i can say for personal experience, that it's a pain you-know-where, doing it without risk to damage the module (you can see what i mean here), but it can be done, if you really want and have the needed patience ;)
 
RA_pierce said:
Well, my first green, a Galileo 3 from Laserglow, had 0.7mRad ... PGL has 0.8mRad ... LEDshoppe 50 I modified with CNI crystals and coated optics had 0.7mRad divergence...
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but speaking of being fair, let's see the prices behind those three beauties (rough figures will do). I will bet that we are looking at anywhere from 3~5x the price of a CN online retailer's module at roughly the same output... . Hence my "appreciation" for 1.2mrads... ;)

EDIT:
HIMNL9 said:
...it can be done, if you really want and have the needed patience...
Click to expand...
Very nice writeup to be sure :D
but... talk about a serious amount of effort... o_O
 
Last edited:
Traveller said:
but... talk about a serious amount of effort... o_O
Click to expand...

^ Heh, i know ..... unfortunately, the one that have blocked the threads, used Loctite threadblocker, strong type, and it's one of the worse glues to take away, this one ..... it start to loose at 150 C, but at this temperatue, you damage also the crystal and diode, and the glue that hold the expander ..... so, the only way for do this, is to reach first to detach the tube from the crystal assembly, and then heat it a bit more .....
 
HIMNL9 said:
Uhm, about break the glue for self-adjust the lens ..... i can say for personal experience, that it's a pain you-know-where, doing it without risk to damage the module (you can see what i mean here), but it can be done, if you really want and have the needed patience ;)
Click to expand...

That must be very difficult.
It's almost impossible to not damage module.

What is the best divergence you managed to get from this module?
Can you achieve better divergence than it was before when it was glued?
 
@ ReNNo: i don't have a secure way for measure divergence, actually (must invent something, first or after :p), and the modification was made, mainly, for try to make the module "focusable at short distance for burn" ..... can say you only this, about focusing it on distance:

As new, the dot, looking at it with a telescope, was covering at least one meter of diameter, shined on the wall of a church that i use as target for these tests (is at 3600 meters away, in line with one of my windows, and at night, there's absolutely none in the line of sight :))

After the modification, i reached with a lot of patience, to obtain a spot that was looking at least the half of the original one, on the wall, but not better ..... also a very little movement is enough for unfocus it again, when it's on the edge of the maximum focus, and i still don't know exactly why ..... probably, starting from a focusing lens with just 5,5mm of useable diameter, there's no way for obtain anything better, also if basically the assemble expander/collimator work like a beam expander (too much low diameter, i guess)

I have also wondered to try and "sacrificate" another 50mW one, for make a different experiment (putting a tube with an additional negative lens just in front of the original expander, then using a 10mm focusing lens, for try to build a "pseudo beam expander" directly inside the focusing assembly), but then i had lots of other problems, and this idea, like a lot of other things, suffered a stop ..... and don't know when i can try it, actually, sorry .....
 
Burning is not what I'm interested in at this moment but must admit that you did great job because it's risky.
I calculated that dot at 3600 meter must be at least 5.5m in diameter (1.527mRad) .... not even close to one meter.

In my case dot at 3600 meter is at least 8 meters.

The easiest way to measure divergence is to put white paper at distance of about 10 meters and measure dot's diameter with safety glasses.
It's not the most accurate method but it will tell you approximate value.

That idea with additional negative lens is great but difficult to get done if you don't have access to CNC so you can make everything that you need.

I really want to know what is the lowest divergence that you can get with 150mW O-Like module.
When you focus your module to infinity what is beam diameter at few millimeters from aperture?

EDIT:
@ZRTMWA
I'll ask him about divergence by private message....I don't see any of these information at his topic.
 
Last edited:
I have also wondered to try and "sacrificate" another 50mW one, for make a different experiment (putting a tube with an additional negative lens just in front of the original expander, then using a 10mm focusing lens, for try to build a "pseudo beam expander" directly inside the focusing assembly), but then i had lots of other problems, and this idea, like a lot of other things, suffered a stop ..... and don't know when i can try it, actually, sorry .....
Click to expand...

HIMNL9:
I have improved divergence of an O-Like module by replacing the expander lens to get more expansion. Is that what you were talking about? An additional negative lens will obstruct the beam path and will result in less power, so I think replacing the lens rather than adding another one is a more efficient method.
The problem with these modules is that the expander lens does not allow the beam to get any wider than ~0.8mm at the final collimating lens so the final divergence is usually larger than 1.2mRad.
Aligning the expander lens was a real pain in the ass, though and took a LONG time to get perfectly centered.
Loosening the collimator lens to adjust it for the new expander is very difficult also.
The tube that houses the collimator lens, however can be easily removed with some pliers.

Considering the amount of effort and time it takes to modify one of these, it's really not worth it. If you happen to get a decent one, you may as well just leave it. I have trashed a good module trying to get better divergence (<1.2mRad).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.





Back
Top