LOBO gun, has Brad ordered one :)

[mixedgas]

Going back to the easy MPE measurement points raised above...

In my opinion, the industry regulators (governments not ILDA) are their own worst enemies when it comes to making simple MPE measurement cheap and easy.

Two things that stand out are:

1. Pulse Width Measurement Requirement

2. Aversion Response Allowance - for beam shows without a fast scan fail at / or below 1x MPE (above 1 x MPE it rapidly becomes important)

Without the above, measurement is cheap and easy with a compliant sensor (7mm square (7x7) or equivalent round aperture, minimum 1mw sensitivity, broad spectrum response).

I've not discussed in more detail to avoid flaming.

As for the US.....
The above is the EASY MPE technique, some of us would like to have the option of the higher energy, which involves math and pulse measurement. You are not going to get the FDA to change off ANSI Z136 or 21 CFR 1040, that would take an act of Congress for all practical purposes. CFR = Code of Federal Regulations.
This does not just affect laser shows in the US, it affects medical and industrial users.

Steve

[norty303]

Can you explain to me what a 'compliant sensor' is please Al? Is my 64mm^2 sensor non-compliant?

[White-Light]

Norty, I'm not going to be drawn into a pointless flame war on dictionary definitions of terms I may have used colloquially, but if it makes you happy lets substitute suitable for compliant.

We both know you can have a sensor of any square area, provided you overfill it and provided you can do the math.

We both know by compliance I meant a suitable visible light broadband spectrum response and sensitivity.

However, having said the above, and not forgoing the fact that a sensor can be any physical area that can be overfilled, if simplicity is the aim, then it's easier to deal with a sensor that's 50mm2, either natively or by masking because its both easy to fill and it also ensures the math is very easy.

[norty303]

Al, I know, and you know what it means, but for people reading this who may not; it did sound as if there is a required size.
So I don't think its pointless, if it clarifies a point for the more novice readers and stops them disregarding potentially suitable meters.

[White-Light]

Sorry Norty maybe I should have been more precise. I'm just a bit defensive these days, but equally I'm sure you realise why...

[buffo]

X-Laser has made mistakes. Those who were on the ILDA list may recall a protracted discussion about a guy who reported being scanned 'hard' by an X-Laser product at a trade show.

Dan;

You make some good points, but in reference to your above comment, I'd like to point out a fundamental difference between the X-laser incident at the trade show and this more recent incident at the ILDA conference.

The issue with the X-laser projector at the trade show was discussed in detail on the ILDA list. Everyone who monitored the list knew about it and knew that you investigated the event and determined exactly what happened.

This is NOT what happened with the incident with the LOBO projector. There was no mention of it on the ILDA list, nor was there any mention of it on the ILDA website. I only found out about it by speaking to two ILDA members who actually attended the conference.

I suspect most people here on PL only learned of the incident when it was posted here, despite the fact that it happened 3 months ago. Truthfully, unless you were at the conference, you'd have no way of knowing that it happened.

Contrast that with the flurry of activity on the ILDA list when the issue with the X-laser projector at the trade show came up. Or for a more recent example, what about the video of the Justin Timberlake performance where you see him get hit in the face with a static beam? Within a day of both events, people were talking about it on the ILDA list.

This is what I mean when I say that it appeared ILDA was covering up the issue. True, it may simply be that they felt it was handled adequately in the immediate investigation after it happened, but that doesn't change the fact that it was never publicized. So why does LOBO get a free pass when mistakes are made, but when other companies do the same thing it's all over the ILDA list?

See the dichotomy here? Whether the lack of discussion was intentional or accidental is irrelevant. It further perpetuates the perception (whether it's accurate or not) that ILDA is a good-old-boy's club that protects it's own. ILDA needs to be more sensitive to this sort of thing in the future, if they ever want to dispel this perception that people have.

Adam

[Galvonaut]

Adam, Yep.

There is a nice page on the ILDA website regarding current and past investigations - the page suggest that there have been no investigations since November 2011.


Keith

[Stiffler]

This might be over reacting, but...

[planters]

After reading through this thread I think I have a pretty good idea of what is going on. LOBO is not a significant component of the issue and the ILDA is not evil, but they did make a mistake and continue to do so as they are seen as less than forthcoming. I think that the increased scruteny they are now under may benifit everyone.

What is the apeal of a moving head as opposed to a a slow scanned, fixed projection head. It seems to me it is much bulkier and less safe?

[buffo]

Update:

I just got off the phone with Patrick Murphy, Executive Director of ILDA. He explained several points, chief among them the fact that an extensive investigation was performed on-site immediately after the incident, and because the results of that investigation showed that proper measures had been taken to ensure it would not happen again, they decided that there was no further need to discuss the issue. (Everyone at the conference was briefed on the results of the incident.)

However, Patrick also admitted that in hindsight it would have been better to announce that this incident happened to the rest of the ILDA members who were not at the conference. Note that the purpose of such an announcement would not be to crucify LOBO, but rather to explain the incident and the findings of the investigation, thus stopping any rumors about what happened and allowing others to learn from the experience. Patrick said he would speak with the board about making some kind of announcement regarding this issue in the near future.

One other thing that came out of our phone call is the lack of direct communication to ILDA. Of this I am 100% guilty. I posted what I knew here, but I didn't call Patrick to give him a chance to respond. That's my mistake. In the future, when there is a question concerning ILDA's performance as an organization, I'll try to remember to at least give them a chance to respond before calling for everyone to grab their pitchforks! (It would also have been good if someone had posted the question to the ILDA-list directly.)

In the end, I'd like to re-state that I don't believe there was a deliberate cover-up. I think it was more an oversight on ILDA's part. They simply felt comfortable that the incident was properly investigated, and control measures were put in place to solve the problem, so they considered the issue closed. But it still *looks* bad, even if there really was no ill-intent, and Patrick agrees that there is a potential for the whole event to be perceived negatively.

In the future, I hope that ILDA is more willing to discuss things like this on the ILDA-list.

Adam

Edit: Just noticed your post Eric. You have an accurate picture of what happened.

As for the usefulness of a moving-head laser, the unit is designed for international outdoor events where air traffic is curtailed in the area. Evidently the beam is up-collimated to a very large initial diameter, thus reducing the divergence dramatically. The idea is to use them as pseudo-searchlights, albeit with multiple colors. One of the advantages of this design is that the irradiance is actually quite low for a 100 watt laser. (On par with a 1 watt pointer, or so I'm told.) Finally, the demonstration at the ILDA conference was not representative of how it would actually be used in the field.