@ScientistSmithYT Since you want to make a high power laser diode, you might be interested in what these foljs have to say. The whole article is available online there. Adobe didn't want to open the PDF, but that's probably just a problen with my phone. You can read the whole thing in your browser, though.

@ScientistSmithYT Why would you have an "energy reducer" in a laser?

The diode crystal itself is used to convert from plain, monochromatic light to laser light:

I guess this monster will just have to be cooled with liquid helium...

@ScientistSmithYT From Wikipedia on YAG lasers: "In this Q-switched mode, output powers of 250 megawatts and pulse durations of 10 to 25 nanoseconds have been achieved."

Sounds like more than enough power to blow up your "wearhouse."

@JRE There is a mens "wearhouse", (clothing store). I like how you are keeping with the original from Mr. Smith. warehouse.

definition : A warehouse is a building for storing goods.

@JRE 250 MW for 10 ns is not going to blow up anybody's house, wear or ware.

@ThePhoton Works out to just a few joules. Yeah.

Now, if the repetition rate is high enough, ...

But given the citation for that number in Wikipedia is from 1965, it was probably on the order of 1-10 Hz.

IIRC, Maiman (the first to demonstrate a working laser) proposed that laser power should be measured in units of "gillettes", where 1 gillette is the power needed to burn a hole through one razor blade.

Maiman's laser was somewhere in the neighborhood of 1-2 gillettes, again IIRC.

hello :) @ThePhoton

@JRE I want the light to be more visible. Other than the possible stray red visible light.

@Marla That's why I specifically said warehouse sized building.

@ScientistSmithYT It's very common to use a YAG laser with a frequency doubler to make visible green. ("very common" because it's simpler and cheaper than other ways of making a green laser at moderate to high-ish power)

@ThePhoton Yup

@JRE The crystal acts as an energy reducer because it brings the light energy level states down. There is no "energy reducer" quoted statement needed.

@ScientistSmithYT Once again, we don't always use the clearest words to describe stuff in physics and engineering, often because when we first discovered stuff we didn't fully understand it. But the words we do use are well understood in the physics & engineering community. If you want to communicate with physicists and engineers, you'll do better using the words that they already understand (even if their meaning is not the same as in non-technical English) than making up your own words for things.

@ThePhoton I don't seem to be having trouble at all talking to physicists or engineers in person and over messages. So I don't know what you're talking about. The many physicists and engineers I've met and talked with and collaborated with don't use strict terminology. They use normal english words they make it simple because they don't care to use the perfect technical wording. And from the feedback I've got from several of them they tell me I'm never making up words for things.

@ScientistSmithYT It's much easier to make yourself clear with imprecise vocabulary when you're face to face than when you're communicating through text.

Also, when you're face to face with someone, they might be less willing to give constructive criticism for fear of offending you.

@ThePhoton They tell me I use the proper words to describe things. Now if you mean to use 1 word to say 4 words. No they don't do that and neither do I.

@ScientistSmithYT I'm talking about things like saying "energy reducer" when you mean "gain medium" (I think).

@ThePhoton I tell them to be straight up blunt and honest with me. Otherwise I believe they are lying. I also do use inprecise vocabulary when I message them as well. They get what I say, they also do the same to me. I also get what they say. It's always better to make sure the point is given and recieved. It's not good when the point is always given and not received.

Most laser guys think more about the fact that it amplifies the optical beam than that it reduces the energy of the excited species as a side effect of that.

There are many words to describe the process medium gain, energy reducer and even just using the word medium can be used. The point is to describe the processes that is happening.

The amplification is done before the light hits the crystal. That is in the diode itself. The crystal lowers the lights energy state turning it into light we can see.

That's the true part of what a laser stands for and does. But it doesn't give the whole picture. I once thought the same thing. But I can across something that made no sense. Which I later found out about.

What kind of crystal do you use for that?

Or you're using a MOPA (master oscillator power amplifier) where the amplifier part is optically pumped?

It's converting IR light into visible. That's what I'm doing.

@ScientistSmithYT That would usually be considered energy increasing, not reducing. The photon energy at IR is lower than at visible.

True, but in this case the decrease is in wavelength

@ScientistSmithYT Decrease in wavelength means photon energy increase, not energy reduction.

You could call it a wavelength reducer. But calling it an energy reducer says the opposite of what it does.

Ahhaa... it's a SMPS for light. ;)

@KamilWitek I mean, I think you got the high points on what the differences are

oh, missed the part about a direct coaxial connection - that case works as a balanced transmission line, and if everything is in "50Ω mode" it'll give a good signal.

1x mode on an oscilloscope is a pretty desperate hack, IMO

OK, what do You mean by "desperate hack"?

Because all it's doing is shorting out the 9MΩ resistor (and capacitor) in the probe tip, but leaving the lossy and capacitive coax behind. The only benefit of having a scope probe at that point is that there's a grabbing hook on one end.

Maybe I am out of date, but in the past, I would use 1X when I needed to view small signals that didn't display too well on 10X

@W5VO : Now I get it, thanks. @Marla : Yes, I did that as well. Thanks for the answers :)

So going from 10x to 1x means that you are increasing the capacitive load of the probe by about a factor of 10x, and decreasing the bandwidth of the probe by 5-50x (probe dependent).

For a 1MHz signal, that means you're near the -3dB point of the probe, while presenting about a 1.5kΩ capacitive impedance

@W5VO . . yes, I agree with the loading changes

So I don't disagree that it has its uses, but at the same time a short piece of coax may suit your needs better

@W5VO . . when I was 16 years old, and obtained my Novice Ham licence, an old timer (non-engineer) told me to use at least several feet of coax so that the coax impedance could "establish itself", I didn't know any better until attending the university. (not related to our discussion on 1X ). . .thought you might enjoy that story

Kind of like getting advise from an audiophile

Well, an unprofessional audiophile

Yikes. I'm trying to pick out a white LED to light up a block of rock salt. There's more LEDs out there than I can count. Over 36000 white LEDs at Mouser.

As detailed as the filters are, they don't include "light up a 10*10*10 cm block of dark rock salt bright enough to be inteteresting but not so bright as to wash out all the details."

I guess the simplest thing is to get one too bright and then run it at lower current to get the details back.

Hmmm. Nope. No filter for "too bright."

@Marla Yeah, half-truths like that... I think the internet has been an amazing resource for helping dispel ideas like that

@JRE Get a (LED) flashlight that advertises its device, and then you can correlate

or start from a spot light style bulb to guesstimate the wattage you need

@W5VO The only LED flashlight I've got falls into the "not bright enough" category, and I don't have any specifications for it anyway.

Severe shortage of LED lights in this house.

I mean, you can still kinda ballpark it with a CFL/incandescent light, you're only looking for a rough order of magnitude

@W5VO Ok. That got me an answer of sorts. If I light it from the back, a 5W LED spotlight will light it well enough to see the light all the way through. If I light it from the bottom, the block of salt has so much impurities it might as well be a real rock.

Looks like I'll be lighting it from the back, and probably use a weaker light in a hole. It "conducts" light better when the bulb is in smooth contact with the salt.

What about a lamp in the middle of the salt? I'd try it, just to see how it looks.

Half the thickness in each direction.