| previous by date | index | next by date |
| previous in topic | topic list |
I understand about lost power. In my example the beam was round to start with but I had to filter out secondary beams to provide an as clean beam as possible and I was not looking for max power.
My point was exactly that: The beam expander + big aperture would be similar to a small aperture and no beam expander: both would lose significant power.
To preserve power as discussed, use either a curved mirror in one dimension or a cylindrical lens.
Bertho
From: Slavko Kocjancic Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 03:59
On 11/19/2013 09:39 AM, Boman33 wrote:
Note, my example had nothing to do with obtaining a small spot for developing artwork or PCBs. It is a common method for obtaining a “clean” laser beam focused on infinity. It was used for optical experiments. A beam expander will not remove any secondary laser beams, they too will be expanded.
A beam expander plus an aperture presumably will be the same as just an aperture of a smaller size directly in the beam. For example, if the laser beam is 1 x 3mm, a 1mm aperture would give a 1mm beam. Would that not be identical to a 10X beam expander with a 10mm aperture?
Bertho
Doesn't matter.
If beam is 1x3mm and I need 1x1mm with this method I lost 2/3 of power. It's only masking unwanted portition. And expanding and companding losse some power too. I just wonder if I can remove that with lens (colimator) tilted. Or some additional lens tilted... ...need to try, but for now I'm focused ti try the LED aproach