![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hey Moo, did you ever do that promised laser test? I'm interested in
the results, if any... As far as actually blinding a pilot (even if temporarily) at a distance, it is a trivial task... It will take roughly $5K worth of commercially available industrial equipment and one semester worth of physics 101 ( a lifetime of brain washing in paranoid superstition and fanaticism won't cut it)... Denny |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Happy Dog wrote: Hello FBI surveillance software? Anyway, I am now in possession of one brand new "Jasper" DPSS 5mw laser from bigha.com. That's the same laser used in the recent media hyped incidents Is your shift-lock perhaps stuck and you meant to experiment with 5MW? [ ![]() |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Denny" wrote in message oups.com... Hey Moo, did you ever do that promised laser test? I'm interested in the results, if any... I think he is in the hospital having eye surgery ![]() |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi, i'm new to Alt.lasers, so bear with me, i'm unfamiliar with the
setup of this forum, to be honest i find the google forums hard to negotiate.I usually hang out at CPF, which was linked to here. Any way, that getting OT. What i wanted to bring up, was Skyline i read your email exchange with the APSA, and was very impressed. Is there any way to include the Amount of the "reflected" beam that would reflected off the cockpit widows them selves? If not, Would you be able to include a refrence to this? Now i know that you guys have probably seen this: http://www.lumalaser.com/redbaron.htm many times, but it relates to this topic entirely. I don't know who's side of the debate it works best for though |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi, i'm new to Alt.lasers, so bear with me, i'm unfamiliar w=ADith the
setup of this forum, to be honest i find the google forums h=ADard to negotiate.I usually hang out at CPF, which was linked to her=ADe. Any way, that getting OT. What i wanted to bring up, was Skyline i read your email exc=ADhange with the APSA, and was very impressed. Is there any way to includ=ADe the Amount of the "reflected" beam that would reflected off the=AD cockpit widows them selves? If not, Would you be able to include a r=ADefrence to this? Now i know that you guys have probably seen this: http://www.lumalaser.com/redbaron.htm many times, but it relates to this topic entirely. I don't know who's side of the debate i=ADt works best for though |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"DaFiend" wrote in news:1107310913.876953.310020
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: Hi, i'm new to Alt.lasers, so bear with me, i'm unfamiliar w*ith the setup of this forum, to be honest i find the google forums h*ard to negotiate.I usually hang out at CPF, which was linked to her*e. Any way, that getting OT. What i wanted to bring up, was Skyline i read your email exc*hange with the APSA, and was very impressed. Is there any way to includ*e the Amount of the "reflected" beam that would reflected off the* cockpit widows them selves? If not, Would you be able to include a r*efrence to this? BTW, it's "Skywise". The genereal rule of thumb for the reflection off uncoated glass at normal incidence (that is, not at an angle) is 4% per surface. Not sure what it would be for the material actually used in aircraft, but I doubt it's much different. It also will change according to the angle of incidence, namely more reflection. There could also be a small effect do to polarization. Different polarizations reflect differently at shallow angles. Before including such numbers in my calcs, I'd need real world figures of reflection for the materials in use and their dimensions and numebr of layers to be of much use. But then, I'm not sure it would be worth the effort. Perhaps other optics experts coudl comment? Now i know that you guys have probably seen this: http://www.lumalaser.com/redbaron.htm many times, but it relates to this topic entirely. I don't know who's side of the debate i*t works best for though Oh yeah. We've been all over that. Do remember they were dealing with a slow moving plane at very low altitude. Brian -- http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy Home of the Seismic FAQ http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
my apologies, i was in a bit of a hurry.
Not a very good start. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"DaFiend" wrote in news:1107317792.491056.215260
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: my apologies, i was in a bit of a hurry. Not a very good start. Don't worry about. No biggy. I hope I helped answer your question, though. Brian -- http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy Home of the Seismic FAQ http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The convention mentioned (Protocol IV)
I believe you mean, "alluded to," "inferred" or "referenced," because I did not mention any convention beyond the Geneva Convention. does not prohibit non-eye-safe lasers on the battlefield. I've heard that on this forum. I cannot state authoritatively the reason that my employer told me something different than you are telling me. It does prohibit the building of specific use laser devices to intentionally blind people or use an existing device to intentionally blind people. It does not cover the accidental blinding of personnel as a result of the legitimate use of a laser device (ie rangefinding or target designation). In any event there are only 79 countries that have ratified the protocol (introduced in 1998) and to date the US is not one of them. Maybe so, but part of the military's decision not to use non-eye-safe lasers in battlefield conditions probably involves protecting our own soldiers. As I understand it, none of our own military personnel are allowed outside or anywhere they might be exposed to the beam when using the YAG laser range finder. "AN/PVS-6, MINI EYESAFE LASER INFRARED" http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/an-pvs-6.htm BTW, as it happens, Sam's Laser FAQ includes a description of the unit I was building. I don't recall ever seeing the final assembly, but I sure recognize the oscillator sub-assembly. "Photos of Varo Rangefinder Erbium Laser" http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/...c/varopics.htm Please refer to the following photo: http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/...ic/varo-lh.jpg Notice the gold-colored section in the foreground with wires leading out of both ends. My job was to assemble at least ten (10) of those every day. I built them up on a base block, using a special jig that appeared to be manufactured out of monel. It consists of two eliptical, gold-plated reflectors; the Cr:Er:Glass rod (bottom of the elipse, and about the dimensions of an ink pen refill cartridge); the flashlamp (top of the elipse, about the size of a pencil); two metal support arms; two sets of rubber grommets for sealing the rod and flashlamp into the assembly via the metal support arms. I had to inspect under a microscope each laser rod that I used. First, I had to ensure that the ends of the rod had no more than an acceptable number of inclusions (bright stars in the field of view of the microscope) and scratches. Then, I had to use several types of solvents and some lens tissue to clean the ends of the rod. I had to use the microscope to ensure that my cleaning had been satisfactory. I placed the rod in a V-shaped holder in the jig. The assembly would be built up around it. The grommets were tough to put on the laser rod. They were made of rubber, which meant that they would contaminate the ends of the rod if they touched each other. It is difficult to slip a grommet over a tiny glass rod without allowing the grommet to touch the end of the rod. The grommets, themselves, had to be cleaned prior to use, too, and might be slippery from the solvents. I had to wear finger cots and use tweezers to handle the laser rod and grommets, and I had to change out my finger cots every 10 or 15 minutes to prevent my skin oils from contaminating the laser rod. Our materials suffered from various defects. The laser rods cost about $800, and most were coated by a third party. My employer tried to coat some of the rods, using our own optical shop up the hall. The results were horrible. Under the microscope some of the rods had just a few "stars." I understood those were coated by the third party. Other rods looked like a sea of stars. I understood those were rejected rods that our optical department had tried to salvage. The flashlamps cost about $50. Our electronics shop brazed the electrodes, but the results were often a brittle connection. If an electrode broke off during assembly of the laser cavity, the cavity had to be dis-assembled and rebuilt with a new flashlamp. This counted against the 10 units that I had to assemble each day. I found it expediant to bend the wires of the flashlamps "gently" when I took them out of the supply bin, so I could eliminate the brittle connections before I began assembly. My supervisor eventually noticed that I was rejecting a lot of flashlamps, and told me not to test them so aggressively. Of course, those wires could snap later during testing, but that would not be my immediate problem. And, as long as our units made it to out troops, breakage was not our problem at all. However, very few of our units actually shipped. Most failed in environmental testing. After I finished building each laser cavity on its block, I placed the unit on a cart. The next team took these units into a dark room, where the optics were tested and aligned. Somewhere along that time, the units were taken off the block I had used and were mounted on the plate that you see in the photograph. I remember seeing the rotating mirror (the Q-switch) and the circuit board, but that was a few yards farther down the room from my workstation, so I did not see it very often. Most of the time, I had my head stuck in the flowhood, "putting little screws into little holes," as I like to put it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Sport Pilot inconsistency | frustrated flier | Piloting | 19 | September 10th 04 04:53 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 117 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Piloting | 114 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |