RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power demo

[Aseras]

Re: RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power dem

I'm still working on my little demo. Right now I've been enjoying my 2.4 watt 808 laser pointer/burner from hell.

The little pot power level DOES work 1 is 500mw, 2 is 1 watt and then it hops up a little bit all the way to 9 where it's at 2.4 watts on the lpm1.

With everything removed and just screwing the cap back on you get a NICE tiny, about the size of ( . ) focal point of IR about 3 inches out from the head that'll light anything on fire instantly. No more guessing with IR goggles it lights stuff up BRIGHT WHITE and then flames/smoke.

That said most of my delays has been because of the high winds here in florida and a tree blew down on the pole in my back yard and took it out, the tree did loose though, it caught fire . FPL took their sweet as time fixing it. and cleared every other tree in the neightborhood ( 68 house )before restoring power.

 

[JohnnyBra]

Re: RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power dem

Aye.. I've always wanted my own laser-burned tattoo

 

[Cyparagon]

Re: RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power dem

Lawl, I did that once with my pulsar. It faded away in a week though.

 

[Deleted member 10578]

Re: RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power dem

bump...still hopin to get a response from jack about this

Hi DoughDTD,
I talked with the manufacturer about this and they told me that what was seen is intentional and part of their "design secrets" and that this is internal to the optical assembly section and accessing this area of the laser voids all warranty coverage. I was provided just a little information as to the why and how this part of the design works, but am under non-disclosure.

They did assure and prove to me this was normal and that the final output of the laser is fully TEM00 and promised to be at or above the rated power; so as long it outputs a nice round TEM00 beam and that beam meets and exceeds it's power rating, I'm happy.

Jack

 

[SenKat]

Re: RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power dem

Jack - not trying to be argumentative, but nondisclosure about this ? That is a total load of crap ! NOT on your part - on THEIR part, for not allowing it to be cleared up, and spoken about ! I know you are in a tough spot in all of this, with privelidged information and all of that, but honestly, it LOOKS like there is something to hide in all of this, as soon as they slap down the non-disclosure thingie on you. Not cool on their part, not cool at all. Again, I am not chewing YOU out for not being able to tell us, simply stating that when the company takes that kinds cop-out on things, it pisses me off.

 

[DoughDTD]

Re: RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power dem

i agree with you greg, but jack makes a good point. Lets say that half of the power is wasted into this second beam, you STILL get a laser that is above spec with a nice TEM00 beam. They are still very solid lasers, great reviews, great performance. Im still interested in why this happens, but I would definately have no problem buying an Optotroincs product.

 

[jayhawker08]

Re: RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power dem

not everytime a company uses non-disclosure is it for a sinister reason. they probably just don't want everybody knowing how their patented product works. jack seems pretty assured that it is normal now that it has been explained, so i wouldn't worry too much. they probably just don't want everyone tearing apart their products. then again, maybe they are hiding something evil

 

[SenKat]

Re: RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power dem

No - I think you guys misunderstand me....I am not saying I would not buy from Opto ! I like the RPL's, and TBH - the first thing I WOULD do with it is tear it down to the bare emitter to see how it works, because that is just me - voiding the warranty ? SURE ! I would not expect it to be intact after doing something like that, I just think on a topic with three pages now, and an issue that has been identified, that the manufacturer would step up to the plate, and say, " Look - we hear your concerns, and it is part of our design process - we found that it is much easier to do it this way than the normal way...blah blah...blah. I just would feel a little bit more satisfied with that answer, instead of the cop out of NYAH ! not telling, so there ! If it MATTERED, I could understand keeping it a secret - but whatever.

 

[Milos]

Re: RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power dem

I find Asers' explanation makes very good sense.

"A good quality crystal setup with the right reflective and antireflective coatings in the right places is what makes the cavity. If you coat the cavity optics to block early 532 you loose some power and generate more heat in the crystal set. So they let the beams pass and block or divert them elsewhere and let the heat build up there rather than in the crystals or in the coatings. heat reduces the efficiency and too much heat will break down the coatings and the crystal and it'll burn. it's better to dump it somewhere else where it won't be a problem.

No matter how good the coating are there will always be some leftover that will get reflected or blocked simply because the light has to pass over 5-10 surfaces to exit. some stuff is just gonna bounce around.

it is in all dpss laser no matter what, the major differences are how it's dealt with.

These are still tem00 lasers. it's not tem01 or tem02. it's not blocking one part of a temo01 beam. some lasers are temo01 for a wider fat beam for visibility."

As a matter of fact,
in my opinion doing it the way RPL does actually protects crystal set from excess early 532(heat) and therefore prolongs its quality.

I DO wish two beams could be combined. That would be a quick way of almost doubling the power of current diode/crystal set abilities that are already available to us.

 

[Aseras]

Re: RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power dem

not everytime a company uses non-disclosure is it for a sinister reason. they probably just don't want everybody knowing how their patented product works. jack seems pretty assured that it is normal now that it has been explained, so i wouldn't worry too much. they probably just don't want everyone tearing apart their products. then again, maybe they are hiding something evil

Well then their NDA and most of their company secrets are going out the window in a few days or so when I finish my little report. I can tell you just about anything about the RPL laser and any of it's parts now.

 

[f22warzone]

Re: RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power dem

any way we can get that moved up the pirority list : )
their is nothing wrong with these lasers right the dot is all nice and round and powerfull its just their wasting a bit of this power? the reason i am asking is becaus i am thinking of buying the 300mw one

 

[Deleted member 10578]

Re: RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power dem

Jack - not trying to be argumentative, but nondisclosure about this ? That is a total load of crap ! NOT on your part - on THEIR part, for not allowing it to be cleared up, and spoken about ! I know you are in a tough spot in all of this, with privelidged information and all of that, but honestly, it LOOKS like there is something to hide in all of this, as soon as they slap down the non-disclosure thingie on you. Not cool on their part, not cool at all. Again, I am not chewing YOU out for not being able to tell us, simply stating that when the company takes that kinds cop-out on things, it pisses me off.

Hi SenKat,
I was not given much more information than I posted here, only enough to show me it is part of the intended design and a hint or two at why it is done this way.
I don't think it's a "load of crap" or anything, companies live and die by their IP (intellectual property) so I have to respect their right to privacy as to the hows and whys of the details in their designs. I know where your coming from and I wish I too could know every detail of the design, but if you look at it from their viewpoint you want the secrets of your design made public. When we buy a product, we expect ithe product to perform to it's rated/ promised specifications (and the RPL does); buying the hardware doesn't mean we bought the IP of design and the details of how it does what it does. I've bought several copies of Windows XP and even if I were Dell computer and sold 100k copies of XP each month, Microsoft still wouldn't give me their source code.

I'll let you know if I find anything on the web about it, I would love to learn more.

Jack

 

[Deleted member 10578]

Re: RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power dem

[quote author=jayhawker08 link=1193076198/30#38 date=1194192830]not everytime a company uses non-disclosure is it for a sinister reason. they probably just don't want everybody knowing how their patented product works. jack seems pretty assured that it is normal now that it has been explained, so i wouldn't worry too much. they probably just don't want everyone tearing apart their products. then again, maybe they are hiding something evil

Well then their NDA and most of their company secrets are going out the window in a few days or so when I finish my little report. I can tell you just about anything about the RPL laser and any of it's parts now.[/quote]


Hi Aseras,
I was going to say, I think your explanation the on the 23rd seemed along the lines of good possibility.

What's your background in physics/lasers ?
I ask because I think it'll take more than a full tear down of each section to know all there is to know about these. I use to do competitive analysis of hard drives when I worked at a hard drive company and it would take the combined effort from our electrical, mechanical, head/media and material science (chemisty) groups and even then there were still many unanswered questions.

It will be interesting to see what you come up with, post lots of picture too.

Jack

 

[SenKat]

Re: RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power dem

[quote author=SenKat link=1193076198/30#36 date=1194192121]Jack - not trying to be argumentative, but nondisclosure about this ?  That is a total load of crap !  NOT on your part - on THEIR part, for not allowing it to be cleared up, and spoken about !  I know you are in a tough spot in all of this, with privelidged information and all of that, but honestly, it LOOKS like there is something to hide in all of this, as soon as they slap down the non-disclosure thingie on you.  Not cool on their part, not cool at all.  Again, I am not chewing YOU out for not being able to tell us, simply stating that when the company takes that kinds cop-out on things, it pisses me off.

Hi SenKat,
I was not given much more information than I posted here, only enough to show me it is part of the intended design and a hint or two at why it is done this way.
I don't think it's a "load of crap" or anything, companies live and die by their IP (intellectual property) so I have to respect their right to privacy as to the hows and whys of the details in their designs. I know where your coming from and I wish I too could know every detail of the design, but if you look at it from their viewpoint you want the secrets of your design made public. When we buy a product, we expect ithe product to perform to it's rated/ promised specifications (and the RPL does); buying the hardware doesn't mean we bought the IP of design and the details of how it does what it does. I've bought several copies of Windows XP and even if I were Dell computer and sold 100k copies of XP each month, Microsoft still wouldn't give me their source code.

I'll let you know if I find anything on the web about it, I would love to learn more.

Jack[/quote]


Jack, and EVERYONE - I was in no way calling what you said "a load of crap"...I do nto think you took it that way, but just in case you did, I wanted to be clear that I was NOT calling you out with my comments.  I kinda look on this the same way as eh...I dunno, maybe Firestone, and their patented Blow-away design ? (LOL  <---Lord, I apologize !)

I just think that everyone knows how DPSS is done...nobody has the materials to manufacture RPL's in their shed, so it doesn;t really matter if they release it or not....IF I truly HAD to know, I would buy one and tear it apart, strictly for that purpose alone.  And then I could duplicate it if desired - I would not need the little N=13x/y44squared secret formula or anything...make sense ?  I think it still sounds like I am ranting, but to me, their IP or ND, or whatever is a cop out to me...I am most likely just being my stubborn self, but seriously !



****EDIT**** I hope this all makes sense !

 

[Deleted member 10578]

Re: RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power dem

any way we can get that moved up the pirority list : )
their is nothing wrong with these lasers right the dot is all nice and round and powerfull its just their wasting a bit of this power? the reason i am asking is becaus i am thinking of buying the 300mw one

Hi f22warzone,
I can assure you there is nothing wrong with some of the RPLs, this is part of the original design and something that happens internally in every RPL. It's not something the user sees by using the laser. All the user gets is a laser that outputs it's promised output power, is TEM00 and produces a nice round dot as you say. This effect is something that can only be seen by disassembly of the internal optical/laser assembly (which does void any warranties). For those users who don't tinker and take their lasers apart, and only care about the resulting output beam, it doesn't matter.

Jack

 

[Deleted member 10578]

Re: RPL laser "dual beam" issue = wasted power dem

[quote author=bootleg2go link=1193076198/30#43 date=1194314635][quote author=SenKat link=1193076198/30#36 date=1194192121]Jack - not trying to be argumentative, but nondisclosure about this ? That is a total load of crap ! NOT on your part - on THEIR part, for not allowing it to be cleared up, and spoken about ! I know you are in a tough spot in all of this, with privelidged information and all of that, but honestly, it LOOKS like there is something to hide in all of this, as soon as they slap down the non-disclosure thingie on you. Not cool on their part, not cool at all. Again, I am not chewing YOU out for not being able to tell us, simply stating that when the company takes that kinds cop-out on things, it pisses me off.

Hi SenKat,
I was not given much more information than I posted here, only enough to show me it is part of the intended design and a hint or two at why it is done this way.
I don't think it's a "load of crap" or anything, companies live and die by their IP (intellectual property) so I have to respect their right to privacy as to the hows and whys of the details in their designs. I know where your coming from and I wish I too could know every detail of the design, but if you look at it from their viewpoint you want the secrets of your design made public. When we buy a product, we expect ithe product to perform to it's rated/ promised specifications (and the RPL does); buying the hardware doesn't mean we bought the IP of design and the details of how it does what it does. I've bought several copies of Windows XP and even if I were Dell computer and sold 100k copies of XP each month, Microsoft still wouldn't give me their source code.

I'll let you know if I find anything on the web about it, I would love to learn more.

Jack[/quote]


Jack, and EVERYONE - I was in no way calling what you said "a load of crap"...I do nto think you took it that way, but just in case you did, I wanted to be clear that I was NOT calling you out with my comments. I kinda look on this the same way as eh...I dunno, maybe Firestone, and their patented Blow-away design ? (LOL <---Lord, I apologize !)

I just think that everyone knows how DPSS is done...nobody has the materials to manufacture RPL's in their shed, so it doesn;t really matter if they release it or not....IF I truly HAD to know, I would buy one and tear it apart, strictly for that purpose alone. And then I could duplicate it if desired - I would not need the little N=13x/y44squared secret formula or anything...make sense ? I think it still sounds like I am ranting, but to me, their IP or ND, or whatever is a cop out to me...I am most likely just being my stubborn self, but seriously !



****EDIT**** I hope this all makes sense ! [/quote]
Hi SenKat,
Don't worry, I know you didn't mean I or anyone else was "full of crap" and I took it the way you intended. I know what you meant and I too wish I knew all the details of many designs...especially the XP source code to see what Microsoft is really doing behind our backs that we don't know about.

Jack