Review of the new 15W LPM from LPS....

[CynicalBrad]

Still shows us NOTHING. And is it just me or does it look like the sensor was simply not coated in those images? So, the coating was burning and the solution was no coating at all? :banghead:

I have no hopes for these. I do not see these picking up around here with all the issues and the obvious lack of effort to correct the issues that have been pointed out. Even the makers of great hobby LPMs have stepped in and offered their advice on what could and would need to be changed.

/rant

 

[Lifetime17]

Hi Tommy,
I see the charging port for the usb has been cleaned up and the charging indicator light can be seen now. How about the sensor coating has that been upgraded without any smoking issues? You know what would be great if you can show a 7W 450nm beam hitting the sensor with a reading and no indications of burnt sensor coating and smoke. You said in the past that that isn't an issue but for most folks it is a problem to see smoke emitting from the sensor area. These are the questions presented here. Glad to see some effort trying to upgrade this unit.

Rich

 

[lasersbee]

Changes made in Version 2 as I see them...

1) According to his website... He has reduced his claims
of a 15W Max Laser Beam power to 10W Max Laser
Beam power. (He is getting closer)

2) According to his Manual for this re-monikered LPM
You must completely un-fucus the Laser under power
test to a parallel beam.
My question is...unfocussed to what diameter (in
mm) beam size ???

https://laserpointerstore.com/media/manual/Pocket%20Laser%20Power%20Meter%20Manual.pdf

Seems like he is using the same identical coating...
So 4watts Max using the same Power Testing parameters
of a LaserBee LPM.

3) He drilled a hole near the USB Charge port as I
suggested.

Conclusion:

Same old LPM with an Extra Small Hole for the Charge
indicator LED....
Still not 10W....IMO


Jerry

 

[Lifetime17]

Hi
Still need to see a power test of at least 7W’s with no smoke present. Basically 7W 9mm diodes are available for some time now so there’s no issues in obtaining one driver set to 4.5 or 5A G2 lens should do the trick

Rich

 

[Benm]

I initially tested the LPM using a couple of close-by
Lasers and found that my specific LPM was reading
a little off.

808nm 500mW measured 556mW on 15W LPM... (+11.2%)
650nm 11mW measured 7mW on 15W LPM........ (-57%)
450nm 455mW measured 465mW on 15W LPM.

I reckon the 650 nm result is that far off because it is such a low power measurement. I bet it'd be closer to real power if you used half a watt like you did for 808 and 450 nm.

The fact that it started smoldering at 4 watts when rated for 15 is more worrysome to me. It could be pretty good up to a few watts, but if you actually wanted to use the full range the sensor could not handle that, and it would have been a better choice to advertise lower power capabilty and probably improve accuracy.

Then again, it's just a volt meter over a TEC with a pot to set the readout to match the voltage, which is not ideal. It lacks compensation for non-linearity as well as any predictive calculation to get a realistic power figure quickly.

 

[Mosc007]

It is a wonder it reads anything with only 11mw on it. A 15 Watt Sensor would be very inacurate at low powers. That would be quite normal. My 20 Watt Hyperion reads nothing untill several hundred mW is on it.

 

[lasersbee]

For example our LaserBee AX3 that reads to
5.2Watts can easily detect that same 11mW
650nm laser and it reads it just fine.

Our Newport LPM that we use for calibrations
that has a 10Watt head also has no problems
reading that low powered Laser correctly.

We also need to understand that if a 10mW Laser
reads only 1mW off that is a 10% inaccuracy.
So a 1mW error shouldn't really be a problem.

The problem that I see is that the Coating of the
outrageously over rated LPM is NOT broadband.

I also noticed that when readings shows 00000...
The actual reading could be below Zero. There
is no way of actually Zeroing that LPM.

The other major problem that I see is the tiny size
of the Heatsink attached to the TEC sensor that is
INSIDE an enclosure for those overly High Ratings...
Once the heatsink starts warming up the readings
will be false.

Jerry

 

[astralist]

Great work Tommy!

well at least you've heard the complaint and tried to improve it :beer:
also creating the specsheet although it still needs some more specs needs to be mentioned.

I believe long ago you mentioned about S**e***m coating, why don't you use it? Using that particular coatingm I'm sure it could reads 15W just fine.

But again, I don't know if you are still "Tommy" behind that username..
That's why i wrote down the coating with asterisk..

My 20 Watt Hyperion reads nothing untill several hundred mW is on it.

Hmm.. interesting, because the bottom limit (delta offset) of the 20W Hyperion is about 2mW (0.2mW for the coated version). :thinking:
Which means it can read power above 2mW just fine..
And whatever reading you got needs to be added about 2mW (0.2mW for coated version) which may be neglected.
And you did measuring HeNe laser about 3.4mW before:

I can now test the larger tubes. Started with the Xerox tube made my Melles Griot. Using the 20 Watt Hyperion it measures 3.4 mW, Not bad for a 24 year old Tube.

 

[lasersbee]

Great work Tommy!

well at least you've heard the complaint and tried to improve it :beer:
also creating the specsheet although it still needs some more specs needs to be mentioned.

I believe long ago you mentioned about S**e***m coating, why don't you use it? Using that particular coatingm I'm sure it could reads 15W just fine.

What great work was that...
What improvement are you referring to...:thinking:

All he did was drill a hole for the Charge light
and drop the Max rating from 15W to 10W..
and called it V2...

It is still the same LPM as was tested....

Jerry

 

[astralist]

I'm referring to the effort,
At least he tried lol

Although we expected more progress and improvement here..

 

[diachi]

I'm referring to the effort,
At least he tried lol

Although we expected more progress and improvement here..

Effort? It takes more effort to get out of bed in the morning than the effort we've seen here.

:thinking:

 

[Encap]

Effort? It takes more effort to get out of bed in the morning than the effort we've seen here.

:thinking:

Ditto.
Exactly. Minor external cosmetic changes to a functionally inferior product and more nonsense marketing spin do not mean anything and require little if any effort as you say.

I'm referring to the effort,
At least he tried lol

Although we expected more progress and improvement here..

You know as does everybody else that is a nonsense comment.
The product is very poor quality/toy quality joke worth maybe $25 as a toy.

"Tried" and sorry are for the failures of little children as excuses for their behavior -- not for a business promoting/marketing and misrepresenting knowingly, a toy level product pawned off as a measuring instrument product to potential customers who have little if any recourse for several reasons.
Do you see any "warning" about the products limitations nor real technical specifications.
At best it is an entertainment toy for people that don't know any better nor need a real LPM.

The only real difference between version 1 and version 2 is the smell. Not sure which one smells worse.

Actually , if anything , he is using the double markup price of your LPM and CNI's LPM to funnel/attract people to his low cost garbage level LPM as if it is an equal, good, or better product.
I don't see any disclaimer on his web site saying or warning about the products serious limitations and use --do you?
I don't see any note mentioning it is a toy quality LPM for entertainment purposes only and not meant to be an accurate technical measurement instrument on his web site. Do you see one anywhere?

 

[tommy]

here is a update to those who question on this lovely Pocket LPM:

coating after test:

No burning scar if you loose the focus firstly.

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.

You can't make everyone like you, not to say your "competitors" (it's ridiculous to say LPS is the competitor of LPM producers). Those who thought only they could make accurate LPM should wake up.

We know some people/company can make great LPMs, why they don't release it to the market, that's because of malicious comments, and those who just know knock the keyboard and comment.

The lucky thing is, LPS don't rely on LPF, here is not a sales channel of us. we just share interesting things here.

The laser is bright, but someone's heart is dark.

the end.

 

[lasersbee]

here is a update to those who question on this lovely Pocket LPM:

coating after test:

No burning scar if you loose the focus firstly.

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.

You can't make everyone like you, not to say your "competitors" (it's ridiculous to say LPS is the competitor of LPM producers). Those who thought only they could make accurate LPM should wake up.

We know some people/company can make great LPMs, why they don't release it to the market, that's because of malicious comments, and those who just know knock the keyboard and comment.

The lucky thing is, LPS don't rely on LPF, here is not a sales channel of us. we just share interesting things here.

The laser is bright, but someone's heart is dark.

the end.

You call that a valid test... :thinking:
What.. no NIST Traceable Lighter this time....:thinking:
Where is all the proof of your upgraded V2...:thinking:

Again I will answer your Post in order....

1) I see blemishes on that Sensor surface. Not sure
if that is from a Laser or just a badly applied coating.

2) I understand that the Laser beam that you used
in this test were Unfocussed to just fit in the 12.5mm
sensor window opening.

3) Where is the proof that both Lasers were tested
on a NIST Traceable LPM for the Powers you claim..:thinking:
It is easy to calibrate an LPM to show 1000mw when
only a 100mw Laser is applied.

4) There are many reputable Hobbyist LPM designers
and manufacturers that actually know what they are
doing... unfortunately you have proven that you are
not one of them...

As to item number 2) above let be explain what I see.
For the sake of this explanation... we will assume your
Lasers were 4.5W each and your LPM was calibrated
properly.

A laser beam unfocused to 12mm has a surface area
of ~113.1mm2.
You state that the new Max Power of your V2 LPM is
10 watts.

10 Watts / 113.1mm2 = ~88.42mW/mm2. That is a
Power Density of 88.42 X 100 = 8.8W/cm2.

For example our LaserBee AX3 sensor that we rate
at 5.2W at a 4mm diameter Laser Beam will have a
beam surface area of ~12.56mm2.

5.2 Watts / 12.56mm2 = 414.01mW/mm2 or a power
density of 41.40W/cm2.

It is to be noted that we down grade our actual Max
Power tests to supply a safety buffer if a customer
goes a bit over that max rating by mistake.

If we used the same non-logic testing technique as
you on our LaserBee AX3 sensor as you do... we
could also make a false claim of Max Power at 46W
for our LaserBee AX3...rather that the true 5.2W...
we claim. (414.01mW/mm2 X 113.1mm2 = ~46.82W)

Conclusion:

With your own video proof... you have proven that your
new LPM V2 has a Max Power Density of only 8.8W/cm2.


Jerry

 

[GSS]

Tommy, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ says it all

 

[WizardG]

Tommy wrote,

"The lucky thing is, LPS don't rely on LPF, here is not a sales channel of us."

Ya know Tommy, LPF could become a good sales channel for you, IF you'd quit insulting the intelligence of the members here. Wish I could neg rep you again after seeing that video.