GooeyGus said:
Oh and the hand thing, I was referring more to the hand temperature effecting the thermal sensor. Also I think the remote switches were also an idea to prevent movement of the whole unit when turning it on and off.
Yeah, the idea was to eliminate the hand from the measurement, to eliminate shaking of the laser at power up and to get the exact same aim every time. All this could be achieved with a remote switch. It would result in higher consistency on the same meter, and and more precise zeroing in.
The aim definitelly matters. Maybe not as much on thermal meters.. I can get my 6x to show between 174 and 178mW depending on the aim (most of the center shows 174mW). The edges of the sensor are no good. Jayrob mentioned he can make a red go from 250 to 270mW or so.. If a laser is 250mW, 270 will give the wrong correction factor - 8% too high.
Most people know their meter well enough by now, and know about these quirks and how to elliminate or reduce them.
But making it simple would still help reduce measurement errors further, and with everyone, regardless of their experience..
I have to zero in my meter while holding a powered down laser in front of it with my hand. As i move my other hand there, to zero it in, the reading changes, and the zero is only correct for both hands there. When i then remove the other hand, the zeroing can be off again. Then, after i get a reading, i have to power the laser down, to make sure it goes to zero again. But if i'm holding it with a hand it might not end at zero. So if i want to get a good reading, i often have to repeat it several times.
This only matters for thermal sensors of course. But the "aim" or shaking matter for all of them obviously. A remote switch would make getting precise results simple and faster.
You can achieve the same results with a pointer of course, but then the testing procedure itself is going to require more precision. If it's gonna be a pointer, then i'm just gonna use a tripod i guess.
I also noticed a belief, that the LavaDrive keeps a more constant current than a rkcstr driver. That's simply not true. If you give Rkcstr's driver the voltage it needs, the current will be just as constant as with a LavaDrive. And if you don't give the LavaDrive the voltage it needs, the current will drop faster or become more unstable, than with a linear driver under the same conditions.. Every constant current driver will keep the current constant, as long as you give it what it needs.
The only reason the LavaDrive doesn't usually drop out of regulation, is that people mostly use protected batteries with it. Protected batteries cut off before the voltage get's close to the minimum. And two 3V Li-Ions with a series diode are at the upper edge of what the lavadrive can take, so it would take very long for it to drop out of regulation. On the other hand, people try to drive PHRs with rkcsrt's driver from two Li-Ions at a very high current. But for a high current, a PHR can require almost 6V. The driver itself needs 2.25V, so the absolute minimum for regulation is 8.25V, to be sure it is working right. If you give it two Li-Ions, of course it won't regulate the current.
The only thing, that should be done differently is, that if rkcstr's driver was used, it should be kept away from the diode, and connected to it through wires, so as not to affect it with heat.
I don't care what driver get's used, as long as current regulation at all times is ensured by design. And yes, there will be errors by default. But we don't have to increase them by default.
In the end, whatever comes out of it will be better, than nothing. But how much better depends on how it's done.
Still, i'll be happy if i can finally compare my findings to other people's results and hopefully draw some conclusions.
