The Wicked lasers Arctic. Now we know the reason for the name. Chilled laser.

[Kenom]

Based on its different than Dave's reading of the same laser, and also it does not match all the other average Arctic readings by other people.

Do you have a better assumption? Or is your meter right, and everyone elses is wrong?

I have MULTIPLE meters to test this reading from. This unit was sent out prior to pretty much any other. It would not suprise me as such, that it truly is what it reads to be. Would you like me to send it back to Dave and every other person with a meter to verify that your not all knowing?

*Edit, I noticed in Dave's review that he indicated the laser was just shy of 800mw which with the full power lens does cut the power down by 100mw or more. I'm able to get a stable 950mw out of this thing with no lens at all. With the lens in place, I do come very close to what Daves initial readings are. Apparently it's very important to remove that piece of glass in the full power attachment. I have done so on mine. Just push on the glass and it will pop out as it's only held in place by a little silicone glue.

 

[Hemlock_Mike]

Ken -- I thought the window was coated but I agree that there is a 100 mW -- that's 10% -- loss with that window.

Remember that this is a hobby and we have different meters which are not calibrated or correlated. At class IV power -- I don't care. We are looking for trends, data and curves.

HMike

 

[Tech_Junkie]

Remember that this is a hobby and we have different meters which are not calibrated or correlated.

HMike

That was my original point. I'm not being an ass, just going by what was stated in the OP.