[Laser] Re : 5 mw laser transceiver kit

Chris L vocalion1928 at hotmail.com
Tue Sep 21 17:08:24 EDT 2010 

No Yves, the focussing properties of a laser diode are outweighed by the HIGH COST of the large-aperture, diffraction-limited, quarter-wave-accurate glass optics to focus it. It is, as we have said on numerous occasions in the past, a case of dollars versus decibels. Nobody could afford to duplicate the LIDAR optics that you are using - unless they go to the new PhlatLight LEDs and use a large (say 1 metre square) Fresnel lens as the tx - and even that is a lot cheaper than your LIDAR optic.

And in terms of proof, please add Clint's recording of a LED/Fresnel link of 170 kms range, noticeably less subject to scintillation than your laser recording over 1/3 of that distance. That was sent subsequent to the e-mail you quoted.

I am afraid that this laser obsession rivals thermionic audio in the level of belief required to regard it as a superior method.

Chris Long VK3AML.

====================================

> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:15:12 +0000
> From: f1avy at yahoo.fr
> To: laser at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Laser] Re :  5 mw laser transceiver kit
> 
> "So, Yves, we've demonstrated this effect via mathematics, via optics, in practical systems, by observation, by motion picture record and by measurement. If this is not accepted, I can do no more."
> 
> You will never change Chris :o))
> You are of course right and the mathematics and theorical effects in the coherent area of a laser are evident... !
> But.. the focusing properties of the laser light is obviously infinitly better the one you can get with LEDs.
> To get echoes from various very far away targets, laser stays the best system you can use and it's our goal.
> Basic calculations show us that few milliradiants maximum beam angular divergence is mandatory TX side to get the minimum energy level on a target.
> In our case the enlighted area picture on the detector is smaller the detector sensitive area. 
> The noise from the decoherence and the scintillation from the laser light has no sense in this case because our laser will be pulsed and the number of returned photons from the target will give just a statistic counting change after long time integration.
> 73 Yves
>  
>      
> 
> Yves F1AVY
> http://f1avyopto.wifeo.com
> 
> 
> --- En date de : Mar 21.9.10, Chris L <vocalion1928 at hotmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> > De: Chris L <vocalion1928 at hotmail.com>
> > Objet: Re: [Laser] Re :  5 mw laser transceiver kit
> > À: laser at mailman.qth.net
> > Date: Mardi 21 septembre 2010, 16h10
> > 
> > I am sure that "even with an ultra low cost laser system it
> > is possible to do very interesting com experiments", but
> > basic atmospheric physics tells us that with non-coherent
> > beams, the results will be less subject to scintillation.
> > 
> > I've given the mathematically worked proof of Olga
> > Kotokova, Larry Andrews and Ron Phillips:
> > 
> > http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~okorotko/SPIE4976.pdf
> > http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~okorotko/SPIE4821.pdf
> > 
> > I can also cite this moving image of the speckle pattern of
> > a laser and a LED beam received in a telescope aperture, for
> > comparison of scintillation, through several kilometres of
> > atmosphere:
> > 
> > http://ka7oei.com/optical_comms/laser_pointer_led_fresnel_scintillation_2a1b1.mpg
> > 
> > Let me put this very simply, in a way that anyone with the
> > most basic powers of observation will recognise:
> > 
> > Observe a non-coherent torch beam pointed at a wall. It is
> > seen by the eye as a steady, unvarying light. A smooth
> > "carrier wave" if you will.
> > 
> > Now reflect a laser pointer from the same wall. It
> > twinkles, its reflection looks "granular", and frequently it
> > will be seen surrounded by diffraction rings. These effects
> > are produced by the break-up of coherent reflected
> > wave-fronts, in the reflection off the irregular surface of
> > the wall, and in the passage to your retina through your
> > eye. The same constructive and destructive interference
> > patterns occur in an optical comms beam transmitted through
> > any appreciable distance of air, owing to turbulence. The
> > last thing that one wants in a communication beam is
> > "granularity". 
> > 
> > *Granularity = noise.*
> > 
> > Only a reduction of spatial coherence will minimise the
> > scintillation. Refer:
> > 
> > http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~okorotko/SPIE5160.pdf
> > http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~jmk/pubs/trans.com.ml.det.turb.pdf
> > 
> > So, Yves, we've demonstrated this effect via mathematics,
> > via optics, in practical systems, by observation, by motion
> > picture record and by measurement. If this is not accepted,
> > I can do no more.
> > 
> > But meantime I wish you every good luck with your
> > experiments.
> > 
> > Chris Long, VK3AML, 2 Newton Street, Surrey Hills 3127,
> > Victoria, AUSTRALIA. 
> > Tel: +61 3 9890 8164.
> > 
> > http://www.modulatedlight.org
> > 
> > http://www.bluehaze.com.au/modlight/
> > http://www.modulatedlight.org/Dollars_vesus_Decibels_colour.pdf
> > 
> > 
> > ============================================
> > 
> > > To: laser at mailman.qth.net
> > > Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:42:17 -0400
> > > From: f1avyopto at aol.com
> > > Subject: [Laser] Re :  5 mw laser transceiver
> > kit
> > > 
> > > Chris,
> > > I know I never convince you but even with an ultra low
> > cost laser 
> > > system it is possible to do very interesting com
> > experiments.
> > > The recording in appendix is from F1CDT to 73 Km with
> > a 3 mW red laser 
> > > (a modulated 5 dollars laser pen with its native small
> > plastic lens)
> > > The RX has only a 22 cm spherical mirror (Low cost
> > bathroom magnifier 
> > > :o) and a basic K3PGP RX.
> > > The scintillation is not so strong and the global cost
> > very low.
> > > http://f1avyopto.wifeo.com/musiques/QSO.mp3
> > > With a very large RX aperture the scintillation is
> > reduced by area 
> > > integration and far away the TX the laser light has
> > lost its coherency 
> > > and can be received very well even by a Fresnel lens
> > and a large area 
> > > photodiode !
> > > When the bouncing area used to receive a laser is
> > large enough, the 
> > > scintillation fully disappears.
> > > We are working on a very powerful infrared laser that
> > will be used in 
> > > full compliance with regulation rules into a 1.5 m
> > telescope.
> > > The power density and the pulses duration and rate
> > will be eye safe 
> > > even at the telescope output...
> > > It is a full team work with the help of responsive and
> > competent 
> > > engineers.
> > > 73 Yves
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -----E-mail d'origine-----
> > > De : Chris L <vocalion1928 at hotmail.com>
> > > A : laser at mailman.qth.net
> > > Envoyé le : Mardi, 21 Septembre 2010 14:41
> > > Sujet : Re: [Laser] 5 mw laser transceiver kit
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Sorry Yves, but...
> > > 
> > > (1) Daytime operation with red PhlatLight LEDs (50%
> > power bandwidth
> > > 19nm @ 625nm
> > > bandwidth, allowing moderately narrow optical
> > filtering) is easily
> > > possible when
> > > high-gain, large-aperture molded Fresnel optics are
> > used.
> > > (2) The cost of molded high-gain Fresnel optics are
> > several hundred
> > > times less
> > > than glass optics, for the same aperture area,
> > therefore more
> > > practical, and
> > > more reproducible. How much would it cost to buy
> > (retail) your LIDAR
> > > optics,
> > > Yves? Could any of us afford to duplicate that?
> > Whatever extra
> > > directivity the
> > > laser optics may have, the ability for high output
> > LEDs to be used with
> > > non-diffraction limited Fresnels gives them a huge
> > advantage in
> > > possible and
> > > affordable transmission aperture and optical gain.
> > > (3) The flux output of a PhlatLight can be several
> > thousand times that
> > > of a 5mW
> > > laser. Whatever light is lost via the broadening of
> > the tx beam
> > > actually aids
> > > practicality, by reducing the need for continuous beam
> > steering and
> > > ultra-steady
> > > optical mountings.
> > > (4) PhlatLight LEDs can be modulated with relative
> > ease to at least
> > > 20MHz
> > > bandwidth. Laser diodes only start to have a
> > modulation advantage in
> > > excess of
> > > about 50MHz. I know of no radio ham needing such a
> > bandwidth. Laser
> > > diodes may
> > > be faster, but does any ham need THAT kind of speed?
> > > 
> > > Chuck, you're probably more "on the money" when you
> > say:
> > > 
> > > "I think that the laser gives it a gee whiz bang view,
> > you can blow
> > > smoke at the
> > > beam and it looks very impressive, usually the LED
> > beam is broad and
> > > harder to
> > > show, but that is where it's value is."
> > > 
> > > In other words, "hang practical communication systems,
> > lasers are
> > > cool!" Maybe
> > > cool, but maybe not financially or environmentally
> > practical -
> > > especially in
> > > terms of atmospheric physics, eye safety,
> > scintillation, range and
> > > ancillary
> > > optical cost.
> > > 
> > > I also have grave reservations about encouraging young
> > and possibly
> > > irresponsible people to build laser-based links, even
> > of the 5mw
> > > variety. Maybe
> > > use Luxeon "Rebels" or similar high output LEDs,
> > suitably spread to low
> > > unit
> > > area flux by a cheap molded Fresnel collimating
> > system, but NOT laser
> > > diodes in
> > > a night environment where dark-adapted eyes can
> > intercept the beam -
> > > and ALL of
> > > a pencil-thin beam through their open iris to their
> > unprotected retina
> > > - too
> > > easily.
> > > 
> > > You go on to say:
> > > 
> > > "There are those who are actually doing interesting
> > work with
> > > atmospheric FSO
> > > links, but it is I guess complicated."
> > > 
> > > You then quote some Navy experiments with lasers
> > operating in the
> > > middle
> > > infrared (1535 - 1565nm) followed by fiber optic light
> > amplifiers
> > > producing 5
> > > WATTS (NOT milliwatts) of radiometric flux output (and
> > NOT just 5 watts
> > > of
> > > INPUT), collimated through 10cm diameter glass optics
> > ground accurate
> > > to better
> > > than 1/4 wavelength @ 1535nm, detected by an InGaAs
> > avalanche
> > > photodiode 200
> > > microns in diameter. The military needs link systems
> > that are
> > > undetectable,
> > > using cutting-edge encryption and capable of
> > communication at a GHz
> > > rate. Do we?
> > > This high power Navy system achieves a rather
> > underwhelming range of
> > > 16.3 km.
> > > Maybe more in the vacuum transmission medium of outer
> > space, where
> > > perhaps its
> > > eventual application is intended. And have you any
> > idea of how many
> > > hundreds of
> > > thousands of dollars such a system costs? Or how far
> > from the realities
> > > of ham
> > > optical communication at visual frequencies this is?
> > > 
> > > I was invited to SPIE in California to give this paper
> > in 2006, partly
> > > because
> > > Clint KA7OEI, Mike VK7MJ and I had achieved - for less
> > than $70 per
> > > duplex
> > > transceiver - what the military had failed to do for
> > almost a million,
> > > in terms
> > > of range and reliability:
> > > 
> > > http://www.modulatedlight.org/Dollars_vesus_Decibels_colour.pdf
> > > 
> > > Some basics to be faced:
> > > 
> > > Lasers suffer badly from atmospheric scintillation. If
> > you want to use
> > > them for
> > > FSO, it's best to remove their spatial coherence while
> > maintaining
> > > their narrow
> > > bandwidth, by the use of a diffusing filter as
> > specified in these
> > > papers by Dr
> > > Olga Korotkova of UCF, who measured the way in which
> > bit error rate
> > > increased as
> > > the percentage spatial coherence of a comms beam
> > increased (refer
> > > especially
> > > figure 14):
> > > 
> > > http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~okorotko/OptEng43.pdf
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, such a diffusing filter also increases
> > dispersion and
> > > loss --- so
> > > one gets back to the usage of non-coherent sources.
> > Refer Clint's
> > > comparisons of
> > > laser and non-coherent beams:
> > > 
> > > http://ka7oei.com/Coherent_versus_noncoherent_test.html
> > > 
> > > Well fellas, if you want to go no further than a
> > kilometre or two,
> > > expensively,
> > > with 5mW and far from optimum signal to noise ratio,
> > the use of a laser
> > > diode
> > > pointer is a great way to achieve a mediocre result.
> > > 
> > > Chris Long, VK3AML, 2 Newton Street, Surrey Hills
> > 3127, Victoria. Tel:
> > > 9890
> > > 8164.
> > > http://www.modulatedlight.org
> > > http://www.bluehaze.com.au/modlight/
> > > http://www.modulatedlight.org/Dollars_vesus_Decibels_colour.pdf
> > > 
> > > ==================================================
> > > 
> > > > Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 05:09:11 -0700
> > > > From: toasty256 at yahoo.com
> > > > To: laser at mailman.qth.net
> > > > Subject: Re: [Laser] 5 mw laser transceiver kit
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I guess for me it's mainly the low power aspect
> > of it. Not just
> > > > that though, the prospect of running it on 2 "aa"
> > batteries
> > > > that could last for weeks of intermitant use.
> > Also the challenge
> > > > of making it cheap and simple. If i could make
> > one using four
> > > > transistors and a laser diode dug out of an old
> > dvd player, all
> > > > the better. For an extra bell and whistle, maybe
> > a digital I-O
> > > > and a small solar pannel glued to one side to
> > charge the
> > > > battery!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---- Chris L <vocalion1928 at hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ...why do people persist with lasers for
> > atmospheric optical
> > > communication?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > > > Laser mailing list
> > > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/laser
> > > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > > > Post: mailto:Laser at mailman.qth.net
> > > >
> > > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > > > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> > > 
> > >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > > Laser mailing list
> > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/laser
> > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > > Post: mailto:Laser at mailman.qth.net
> > > 
> > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > > Laser mailing list
> > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/laser
> > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > > Post: mailto:Laser at mailman.qth.net
> > > 
> > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >     
> >         
> >           
> >   
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Laser mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/laser
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:Laser at mailman.qth.net
> > 
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       
> ______________________________________________________________
> Laser mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/laser
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Laser at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

More information about the Laser mailing list