So I made my 561 glp pen 2-2.5 times brighter.

[joeyss]

I always wondered why it was specially set to 3 mw yet the 808 dioide got hot.

even if it was 10% efficent you shouldn't need more than 45 mW of 808.


I noticed that when the batteries went dead there was some 808 even though it had a filter. So I turned the top part where the switch is and i left it on. It got stuck on. as I was adjusting it I noticed it getting much brighter even competing with 20mw of 532 almost as bright. I then pulled the switch up. Now even at it's dimmiest it's still brighter i'd say 3mw or so.

My theory is I moved the top module and got more 808 into the crystal set.

I mean there must be a 60-100mw dioide in there as it gets hot and it eats CR2s they feel warm after like 5 mins of being on. All I can say is fascinating. I Wonder if this works with other lasers that are under 5mw on purpose and are glps? could they just make it so that the IR light dosen't reach the crystal set fully?

 

[diachi]

10% efficiency is a stretch for 561nm. I'd reckon you're closer to 1% efficiency in a pointer.

 

[H2Oxide]

10% efficiency is a stretch for 561nm. I'd reckon you're closer to 1% efficiency in a pointer.

I agree. Microchip lasers using periodically poled MgO:LN will barely achieve 10% efficiency, and that's for 532nm. 561nm without any special modifications would be ~1% at best.

 

[Sta]

I agree. Microchip lasers using periodically poled MgO:LN will barely achieve 10% efficiency, and that's for 532nm. 561nm without any special modifications would be ~1% at best.

Are you talking about wall-plug efficiency, or optical efficiency? As I thought 532nm could get up to 30% optical efficiency in theory.

 

[diachi]

As I thought 532nm could get up to 30% optical efficiency in theory.

It can, that's absolute best case though. You won't see that most of the time.

 

[Cyparagon]

Yellow pens typically have a 1W diode, not 60mW.

You measured nothing. Your results are anything but scientific.

 

[diachi]

Yellow pens typically have a 1W diode, not 60mW.

You measured nothing. Your results are anything but scientific.

Yeah, I'd have guessed anywhere from 0.5W-1.0W pump, without having seen any electrical power consumption measurements.

 

[H2Oxide]

Are you talking about wall-plug efficiency, or optical efficiency? As I thought 532nm could get up to 30% optical efficiency in theory.

The 532nm process can reach a maximum theoretical efficiency of something like 48%, but to even attempt to get close to that you'll have to use a proper resonator.

Microchip lasers are much less efficient than lasers utilizing standard cavities. (L/V/Z/Ring etc.)

 

[joeyss]

Okay then why the hell did the beam splash it has on the lens get much brighter after i did it I lmped it 4mw before I did this.

gonna lmp it soon.

I wouldn't do this to 400 dollar laser unless I had something better than a good hunch

Whats going on aren't 593.5 1% efficient

i cant see a 561 being less efficent then a 473 or 589.

I seen this before when my 400mw 532 crystal came loose it was like 30mw before it came out and getting that aligned is hard to the point I gave up.

 

[Sta]

Okay then why the hell did the beam splash it has on the lens get much brighter after i did it I lmped it 4mw before I did this.

gonna lmp it soon.

I wouldn't do this to 400 dollar laser unless I had something better than a good hunch

Whats going on aren't 593.5 1% efficient

i cant see a 561 being less efficent then a 473 or 589.

I seen this before when my 400mw 532 crystal came loose it was like 30mw before it came out and getting that aligned is hard to the point I gave up.

I do believe 561 is less efficient than 473/589. Pretty sure 1123 is one of the weakest YAG lines.

 

[H2Oxide]

I do believe 561 is less efficient than 473/589. Pretty sure 1123 is one of the weakest YAG lines.

It's the weakest common line anyway. IIRC, it has an emission cross section of ~2*10^-20 cm^2 (I think, I couldn't find any sources to back it up though), compared to 1064nm's 28*10^-20 cm^2, with which it competes.

It's less efficient than a 473nm of the same design for sure. Not sure about 589nm though.

 

[joeyss]

Well It took forever to get to get to 4mw before and now it gets there in under a minute peaked at 6mw I can see the faint beam in my room which is lit by 70Ws of 6500k cfls.


So somehow how I made it output power levels that take it minutes thats why It looked so much brighter.


Still the most unstable laser my 473 lab from 2003 is basically stable vs this


starting my hene when my ac is blowing on it is still more stable.


This thing must be worse than 593.5s.

if i would clean the lens I might get 1 or 2 more mWs out of it.

 

[ultimatekaiser]

Actually, 1123 is more efficient than the 946 line, but not as good as the 1064 line. 561 is not very hard to make with proper mirrors. It's actually pretty similar to generating regular green, just less power to work with. If I recall correctly those GLP's used the same housing as the blue and yellows. I don't recommend twisting as you can actually break it. I imagine it probably just hasn't been adjusted quite to perfection. You may have rotated one of the optics or diode's polarization just slightly which resulted in slightly better results because it wasn't made with absolute care. (it's a pointer not a lab laser they're not going to go to the extra effort to make sure everything is super perfect since it doesn't need it and it's not a normal item as it is) I would advise you to leave it alone though. Those lasers are a real pain to fix if you accidentally damage something or snap the driver, you'll regret it. I can't tell you how many people send those to me having twisted the middle and ended up snapping the driver. If you order those hosts from laser glow they actually put a sticker on it that says do not twist. They're normally epoxied shut, but I've seen a few that weren't well glued. I actually have a blue one of those and I've actually gotten quite a lot of power out of it, but it's terrible for the laser's lifespan.

 

[H2Oxide]

Actually, 1123 is more efficient than the 946 line, but not as good as the 1064 line.

Really? I was under the assumption that it was the other way around since 1064 and 1123 share the 4F 3/2 -> 4I 11/2 transition. Do you know where I could find the numbers for 1123? I can't seem to find them anywhere online. (without paying $40 per article anyway. )

 

[ultimatekaiser]

I don't off the top of my head, but in a barebones cavity, with no fancy footwork, in my experience 1W or so of input usually yields about 150-300mW of 532. the same amount of power generally results in maybe 30mW of 561, and about 5-10mW of 473. but those figures depend on a LOT of factors. quantum efficiency is only one of a handful. Pump method and quality, dopant levels, crystal choice, Q-switching, pulsing, cavity construction, mirror reflectivities, temperature control (ambient as well as for the optics), noise, and perhaps other factors all play a part in that.

Edit: in fact 473 is the most inefficient of the lot IIRC. I think the yellows are actually more efficient than blue by just a bit, but due to relying on two lines that compete with each other with differing operating temperatures, its far more picky to stabilize compared to blue, which is also a direct doubling.