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



Review: 473 nm 100 mW Jet Lasers PL-E Pro „Sky Beauty“

CurtisOliver

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
6,625
Points
113
Yes a cameras CCD can be destroyed easily by concentrated light.

An 808nm travelling backward has more chance of destroying the coatings on the crystals and the crystals themselves than anything else. As the coatings in pointers are not usually designed to take 808nm going back the other way.
 



astralist

Active member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
503
Points
43
BTW crystals should protect pump diode from direct hit, I assume - maybe it is better to spread IR beam with lens not to have it collimated.

I would appreciate opinions whether this test cannot damage the pump diode.
You are welcome :beer:

The pump diode should safe as long as you shine the side of inside barrel, that way the beam should not hit the pump diode at all.

Also, you might want to remove the battery completely from the PL-E, just in case :D
 

Radim

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
1,458
Points
83
You are welcome :beer:

...

Also, you might want to remove the battery completely from the PL-E, just in case :D
That should be done as first step on the list (also removing AC adapter if connected), when doing experiment involving looking into aperture IMO. There is absolutely no reason to take additional risk. It is easy to forget button on tailcap is pressed or key lock is in open position and overlook the lit diodes - now you are just one step from potential accident. And there exist very well working Murphy's laws AFAIK. :D

Edit: Thanks for your opinion, Oliver. I'm thinking about that... Maybe this experiment is not really safe for the laser. Anyway if the IR pointer is really low power with sufficiently spreaded beam and test does not take too much time, the coatings should be fine IMO, they have to resist much more extreme conditions during the laser in operation. Also if the test is done in dark room, you might just see on camera, whether the space after front window is illuminated (no or weak IR filter) or not (possibly sufficient IR filter in front window).

BTW maybe some led around 800 nm should be a better option than laser?
 
Last edited:

astralist

Active member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
503
Points
43
800nm LED would be a good idea if you can find one with adequate power..

Okay then, now back to the topic :D
Is it just me or you didn't measure the actual power output of this PL-E?
Can't find it on the OP..

just curious tho,
 

Radim

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
1,458
Points
83
I did not measure it as I do not have LPM yet. So I used to estimate it by comparsion with my 532 nm Evo in burning and visibility to convince myself about the power. The reviewed laser seems to be higher power than Evo, even that both are 100 mW rated. To be honest I think Evo is much stronger as well with lithium AA I use. Also there was another recent review of the same laser stating it was over 200 mW - if I'm not mistaken - average!!! Even peak is huge. But it depends on the temperature as I mention in the review and in that 200 mW LPM result it was not mentioned - I assume normal room temperature was used. And as every DPSS is somehow different, you can imagine how relevant this test would be
 

Lildutchboy7

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 9, 2016
Messages
1,054
Points
83
Just a small question, could you give an estimate as to the size of the module? Is it the same size as the 532nm modules?
Also, 200mw? That's an insane amount of overspec! Lucky:D
 

Radim

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
1,458
Points
83
I'm not sure. As I did not dismount it. It is hard to estimate by looking in aperture only (for those who do not know it - do not look into aperture when there are batts in or power supply attached to the laser, you might blind yourself).

I think it is much better to ask Gray for that.

Anyway, what I have read here the module should be the same as in Mini version. And if I were manufacturing the lasers, I would use the same host and just change the internals for various powers and wavelengths. Just because of reducing costs by having one host suitable for all. Since JL products are modular (extension tubes, various tailcaps...), this seems likely to me (still there might be some adapter for smaller modules).
 
Last edited:




Top