660nm LOC diodes used on some dancers

[buffo]

he part you missed was that the display was safe because Andy uses super top sekret unicorn glitterass technology that make his displays safe.

Exactly!

I'm going to need something a little bit more substantial than that.

IDLA Cruise...as I was reading that...I KNEW "international waters" would come up.

Yeah. It really bothered me too. I mean, this is the organization that is supposed to be dedicated to doing things the right way, and then this happens?

Though in fairness, the problem stemmed at least in part from the fact that the company that was hosting the event (LaserNet) was not the company that was supplying the projectors (Medialas). Dirk paid a premium for the privilege to be the one who supplied the projectors, so he really wanted to show them off. But safety got trampled in the mean time.

This year it's my understanding that LaserNet will be supplying everything, and Greg will be checking power levels before any shows are run.

Adam

[andyf97]

Buffo,

Thanks for your input, I was away working so have to catch up on what was said since my last message.

In a nut shell, all the guys here winging about safety are guessing based on the actual power used, it certainly was not 200mW but that does not matter as it was more than 5mW.

I don't duck and dive from any question, simply we have somthing new that simply I will not disclose yet so if you want to join the gang of gessing party then feel free, it wont change anything.

am not argueing either with Pat, like I said many times the only thing that got me with Pat was the use of that video which in itself is not good for our industry, you cannot compair people burning alive with what we are doing.

Just remember that the facts arn't known due to something that nobody has consider in messages yet. In time every safety freak with shut up and say OH OK thats how. YOu dont beleieve then thats up to you. I am not going to give details until this .... is proven and protected.

And Pat you can makes as many jokes about this as you like, I simply do not care, I developed something and its something new, call it what you like but so far it's working, I take safety very seriously and that is why we are working on this. Sorry for my words the other night but simply I hates to see that video from the club, it made me sick.

This could be the end of damaged CCD equipment and eyes.

Sorry I cannot disclose more yet but will when we have a stable system to release.

Anyone interested to set up an international safety forum to make more consistency accross the globe, seams there is no standar we can all agree upon.

Internaltional Laser Shows Safety Comittee??


Andy

[Stoney3K]

I don't duck and dive from any question, simply we have somthing new that simply I will not disclose yet so if you want to join the gang of gessing party then feel free, it wont change anything.

This could be the end of damaged CCD equipment and eyes.

Sorry I cannot disclose more yet but will when we have a stable system to release.

That's the whole problem we're facing in this thread.

You're stating "We've developed a system that allows static scanning way over MPE, but still maintaining eye-safe limits in the process."

MPE is defined as the eye-safe limit, so in my book that just defies physics and sounds more and more like the patented magic unicon glitter Pat was talking about.

Put your money where your mouth is. Sure, nobody blames you if you want to make a buck out of a magic box that *might* allow audience scanning with a 20kW Laserscope, but right now, you're just avoiding the question and only saying "This is safe, we know what we're doing, but it's classified and we're not telling anyone."

The whole magic safety-gadget idea sounds great. The show concept (from a creative standpoint) looks cool. But we're not buying the fact that this is anywhere near safe. Prove us wrong, and show one of those things in action next to a power meter.

Personally, I think the magic safety factor here is just a Laserworld sticker on all of those 660nm modules.

[buffo]

Andy, I appreciate your tone, and I would like to see this discussion return to a more civil level. While I agree that the video that Pat posted is disturbing (and alarming), his point that even professionals can make mistakes is none the less valid. While I might have chosen a less graphic way of making that point, it is still a point that needs to be considered.

Just because someone has a lot of experience doing a thing, doesn't mean they are doing that thing safely. With regard to this specific issue, a person could be in the business of doing laser shows for decades and still be doing them unsafely if they do not perform measurements before each show (when beams are directed into the audience).

I am genuinely curious about your need for secrecy here. I honestly can not fathom any "new" method for making beams safe that you would need to keep a secret. Increased divergence is not a secret, nor is it patentable. Likewise, lower than 5 mw beams are not a secret, and are also not patentable. Finally, low duty-cycle, pulsed lasers are once again nothing new, and fall under the same prior art exclusions that the rest of the above examples do.

You freely admit that the beams are greater than 5 mw. From the video it appears that the divergence is not excessive, which would seem to preclude any lens-based solution. And considering that the beams appear solid on the video, I'd say that rules out any sort of limited duty-cycle operation. So I'm really at a loss as to how you can claim this show is safe. More to the point, if you honestly do have some "new technology" that is revolutionary, then you should already have a patent on it. And in that case, there's no risk in divulging the details here, since they would already be explained in detail in the patent.

My concern is that you have unilaterally decided that some other exposure level (in excess of the international MPE) is your new "safe" level. Note that this assumes that the exposure level for that show was actually measured. If you aren't measuring the exposure, then I'd say you are categorically unsafe based on that fact alone. You apparent lack of knowledge concerning the already accepted IEC standards for safety suggest that you are not, in fact, a laser safety expert.

And absent proof that things are otherwise, we are left with the uncomfortable conclusion that you are, in fact, doing *something* that is unsafe. The fact that you are so reticent when discussing the safety of your shows lends an air of suspicion. And you have done nothing to dispel it. If you are truly an expert when it comes to laser safety, then you should not be so defensive when discussing the topic.

In short:

1) You admit that long open-can red diodes were used
2) These diodes are capable of producing up to 250 mw of light
3) You freely admit that they were in fact producing greater than 5 mw each
4) Static beams from the diodes are clearly seen entering the audience area
5) You refuse to discuss *any* safety procedures that were used
6) You even refuse to declare if measurements were ever taken, let alone what they might have been.

Based on the above facts, it is obvious why people are skeptical of your claims that the show is safe.

If you want the "safety freaks", as you call them, to "shut up", then you need to provide more than just a vague dismissal of their criticism. If you are a safety expert, then please - show us your expertise. (Also, for the record, a true safety expert would not refer to the likes of Pat Bischoff as a "Safety Freak". He is a valuable resource who should be respected for his knowledge and integrity, even if he does sometimes post graphic videos to illustrate his point.)

As for your call for an international safety standard, that already exists in the form of IEC regulations, which are accepted world-wide. (Even here in the US, thanks to laser notice 50, which allows manufacturers to abide by significant portions of the IEC regs in leu of those found in 21 CFR 1040.)

Finally, please don't try to hid behind a system that is "unstable" (your words). If it's not stable, you shouldn't be using it in front of a live audience in the first place. If you are using this new technology, it's time to come clean and explain it - at least to the point where the "safety freaks" can make their own judgment as to it's effectiveness.

Adam

[Laserman532]

unicorns with glitter are pretty.

[-bart-]

Guess what Andy will be strapping on dancers soon.

I'll bet it will be perfectly compatible with his truth-cloaking-technology™ though

[norty303]

Guess what Andy will be strapping on dancers soon.

I'll bet it will be perfectly compatible with his truth-cloaking-technology™ though

clearly no-one gives a toss about anything other than 445's anymore!! All the other threads just get in the way... (can you tell I'm caught up in the hype... it's like Christmas)

[Laserman532]

clearly no-one gives a toss about anything other than 445's anymore!! All the other threads just get in the way... (can you tell I'm caught up in the hype... it's like Christmas)

I agree...but can you imagine how AWESOME those dancers will look with TWICE or even FOUR TIMES the power coming out of EACH ONE of those lasers!!! Now THAT is spectacular!!!

I wonder if andy has BLUE UNICORN GLITTER

[Stoney3K]

I wonder if andy has BLUE UNICORN GLITTER

As far as I can tell, he only stocks unicorn glitter with red AR coating.

[andyf97]

As soon as I can I will show you all, there is too much at stake to give even little snippets of info, thats why I refuse to.

I cant afford to go out and take on the cost of its patent yet and some small info might let somebody else jump ahead who can afford it.

So you can all speculate and waiste your time with reasons for me to speak out but simply I wont until what I stumbled on can have some protection. I am testing so please bare with me. There simly no point in this thread until then.

I will not be answering here again until then as the 445 subject is more interesting right now

So thanks for all your comments and we'll get back to this thread later when I can show everyone what we have done.