Lasers and the FBI

[Stuka]

This thread has taken an interesting turn ~
Seems to have turned into a bit of an anarchists' guide to laser weaponry.

Dang, miss posting for a couple of days, and look at what happens...

[Stuka]

I would be interested to know at what angle the beam would need to be in order to enter a pilots eye with the given aircraft and height. Maybe the insurance company and employer would be interested too, as it could tell us a lot about this story.

That would make for an intersting set of calculations, given that you have a constantly changing altitude, rate of descent, airspeed, etc.

Most helicopters are a different story, due to their design (chin bubble plexglass) -
If they can be targeted, chances are the light from the laser (or high power spotlight) is going to make it's way into the cockpit, regardless of the position of the aircraft.

[The_Doctor]

never heard of the guy

I envy you. I kind of wish I hadn't. Maybe being here when he happened might have been fun but I missed that.

[steve-o]

I asked about "Allen" once ..
http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...ght=prodjallen

[The_Doctor]

Oh oh, looks like Pat did encounter him, loosely. Funny thread, that. Jem excelled himself.

EDIT: I read beyond page one since that comment... Seems I really did miss the whole business. Probably a good thing, but it's also good to know now. I shall have to dream up another mythical phantom sometime... Or maybe there's one lurking who might cease being one by introducing themselves and talking about it. If they got inspired by some of the stuff in this thread they'll be safer that way.

[norty303]

Everyone knows that which is spoken here is the the only truth, regardless of how many military flight surgeons, ophthalmologists, and professional aviators might think otherwise...

So who is right?

Buffo and I come at this from the perspective of knowing how to calculate MPE, and doing the sums, using 'typical' equipment avialable in a handheld, at the ranges I imagine are in play in these situations, they aren't hitting MPE or exceeding it excessively.

So, you seem to be saying that either:
a) The parameters of the calculations are wrong (quite possibly), or...
b) These esteemed individuals have actually proved that damage can be caused easily at less than MPE (and the easily is relevent because we all know that MPE does not guarantee safety , but affords a significant margin).

And if it is point (b), then this throws up some interesting implications beyond pointer strikes on aircraft don't you think?

So whilst I understand and respect your position as a pilot on the dangers of lasers strikes, I'm genuinely interested in claims of damage when all the math suggests otherwise.
As Buffo says, having to tell half truths to make a point, somewhat undermines the point once the half truth is known.

Its a bit like 'Lasers blind people' = 'Drugs are bad, m'kay'

[Stuka]

So who is right?

Buffo and I come at this from the perspective of knowing how to calculate MPE, and doing the sums, using 'typical' equipment avialable in a handheld, at the ranges I imagine are in play in these situations, they aren't hitting MPE or exceeding it excessively.

So, you seem to be saying that either:
a) The parameters of the calculations are wrong (quite possibly), or...
b) These esteemed individuals have actually proved that damage can be caused easily at less than MPE (and the easily is relevent because we all know that MPE does not guarantee safety , but affords a significant margin).

And if it is point (b), then this throws up some interesting implications beyond pointer strikes on aircraft don't you think?

So whilst I understand and respect your position as a pilot on the dangers of lasers strikes, I'm genuinely interested in claims of damage when all the math suggests otherwise.
As Buffo says, having to tell half truths to make a point, somewhat undermines the point once the half truth is known.

Its a bit like 'Lasers blind people' = 'Drugs are bad, m'kay'

You forgot the smiley face when you quoted me ~
Still trying to keep the discussion light-hearted, even if it is a very serious subject

Remember I'm approaching this discussion with a vested interest in BOTH sides of the discussion.
Yes, I'm a retired military instructor & test pilot with 20 years serving Uncle Sam, but I'm also a laser enthusiast who has spent many years - and a lot of money - pursuing my interests with lasers!

As with most discussions, the "correct" answer is probably somewhere in the middle.
(And personally, I think the "Its a bit like 'Lasers blind people' = 'Drugs are bad, m'kay' " statement is a bit of exaggeration on the discussions at hand, don't you think?

As I specifically mentioned in one of my previous posts in this thread:

(http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...486#post285486)

Immediate (and dangerous) disruption in the cockpit aside, the long-term hazard is not necessarily that a person is permanently "blinded" per se, but in the case of professional aviators, damage could occur that might not impact the lives of most people, but could be career-enders for professional aviators. (Damage-induced "blind spots" can be a VERY real concern, and could have a impact on whether an aviator can continue to safely perform his or her duties). MPE calculations are great & wonderful tools for the lab & laser shows, but I kind of doubt that matters much in the documented cases of eye damage being reported by the FAA, law enforcement and the military.

Keep in mind that some of the hand-held lasers available now are MORE powerful than many of the laser RF/D systems on military aircraft.
A bit unnerving when you realize that the military treats laser RF/D systems as weapons and restricts the use accordingly, while some moron with an internet or home-brew special can be flailing around unrestricted with something more powerful!

I'll have to admit, I've been a bit surprised by some of the "denial" responses that have been posted in this thread.

Extreme example here, but in some ways this thread has reminded me of some of the smokers I use to hang out with years ago ~
Until they were directly impacted by the health hazards involved, many of them were in complete denial that smoking was a health hazard to anyone.

I guess until some of the folks here take a blast of blast of laser to the face while flying (or even driving), then have to see first-hand the results of their retina scans, MPE calculations are all that matters.

Sarcasm intended...

Randy

[Laserman532]

thank god for plastic surgery...because you can't fix dumb...

[Stuka]

thank god for plastic surgery...because you can't fix dumb...

...............

[norty303]

Stuka, don't get me wrong, this is still light hearted and maybe you're misreading my tone due to lack of smileys, but I'm really very curious.

Putting aside totally the issue of flash blindness, distractions, etc

MPE is MPE, and is based on a reasonable level to not cause damage (regardless of show, lab or indeed aircraft cockpit - unless you pilots have an alternate reality you ship around in that capsule?? ), so if you are saying there are actual damages being done, either they are getting hit at close range (under 150m) with VERY high power pointers (1W+), or there is something fundamentally wrong with MPE as a guide, or 'something else' going on.... [cue spooky music]

This is not me being a 'denier' or whatever people might like to brand it, its me applying logic to the situation.

To put this into figures so people can see where I'm coming from, lets take a fairly common blue pointer, 1W power output, 4mm diameter, ~2mrad (no fancy correction optics in most pointers are there?). This has a NOHD of ~110m

(And personally, I think the "Its a bit like 'Lasers blind people' = 'Drugs are bad, m'kay' " statement is a bit of exaggeration on the discussions at hand, don't you think?

Clearly, this is stretching a point to demonstrate a point. I thought the South Park reference would've made it a bit obvious what the intention was :-/