Posted on 09/28/2004 8:12:49 PM PDT by ableChair
Greta Van Susteren reported that a Delta pilot enroute to Salt Lake City was lazed in the cockpit this last Wednesday. Only country I know that has that hardware (for lazing bomber pilots) was the Soviet Union. Pilot reportedly required medical treatment and this was not a minor injury (weak laser) wound. More will come out to tomorrow as this story hits the print press.
The list of "why's" from the Clinton Administration keeps growing... Oklahoma City, TWA 800, Kapitan Man, and more and more....
What makes me angry (in addition to these cover-ups) is that fully 1/2 of our voting population are happily unaware of these things and could well elect another President who will continue the same failed policies of that horrible era; and that is EXACTLY part of the plan the Clinton(s) hatched when they were running things in Arkansas... arrange education (or lack of) to suit their Socialist purposes.
IMO the fact the Clintons actually "asked for permission from the Russian embassy to perform the search was reprehensible.
The inverse square law does not apply to a collimated beam. Diffraction would affect it, but not very much for a wide beam (10 cm or so).
blinding lasers are going to be either UV or IR and therefore invisible to the pilot.
Why would anyone use a UV or IR beam to blind someone behind UV and IR absorbing glass. Wouldn't they choose a visible wavelength?
"What makes me angry (in addition to these cover-ups) is that fully 1/2 of our voting population are happily unaware of these things and could well elect another President who will continue the same failed policies of that horrible era; and that is EXACTLY part of the plan the Clinton(s) hatched when they were running things in Arkansas... arrange education (or lack of) to suit their Socialist purposes."
You are too kind as probably 60% of our voting population is not aware of this and would laugh at any of us who bring up this "old" data.
This is the big danger if Kerry becomes president. More rampant and even more dangerous attacks by those not friendly to America would happen. The MSM would bury any event not to embarrass Kerry.
Also, I reposted this FR old laser coverage to show that FR has been exposing the lies and spiked news way before the forgeries used by c BS were exposed here on FR.
Red
Add to that the N.Korean bribery, the Los Alamos spying, the giveaway of the Panama Canal, the Riad illegal contributions issues, the non response to terrorist acts against the country from 93 onwards, Clinton meeting with the CIA director once, what other conclusion can a reasonable person come to other than there have been and are traitors at the highest levels in this country? Depressing. Shocking. Scary. Not discussed or noticed.
dont' know.
Good thing I put in my little IIRC disclaimer...
My memory is worse than I thought.
Daly's site at http://www.ltjackdaly.com/
"The heat energy dissipated by a laser traveling through 5 miles of atmosphere is almost certainly greater than the heat energy generated by a space heater."
How does one respond to this? It doesn't make much sense.
A 50 watt laser with a 0.08" diameter beam has a power density of 50 watts over a 0.005 square inch area.
For your space heater with a 24" by 12" face to have the same power density it would have to emit 2.86 million watts of heat...
The laser produces mostly coherent light meaning the beam does not spread much over distance. Therefore the energy density remains high over long distances.
Your space heater generates random wave length infrared light and it spreads out over distance. As it spreads the power density drops with the square of the distance as it fills more and more area. In other words the space heater's power density drops by a factor of 4 for every doubling of distance.
Most of the energy loss (to the intended target) through the atmosphere is by it being scattered, not absorbed for the laser. Even this is pretty low under clear sky conditions. These loses are constant as percentage of loss until you get to very high energy levels. Far, far beyond a 50 watt laser.
The atmoshpere reflects/aborbs only about 50% of the sun's energy passing through it. That is more than 20 miles of atmosphere. Absortion accounts for 19% of that loss. The power density of solar radiation from the sun at sea level is about 440 mW per square inch. Or about 2.2 mW over the same area as the laser. Therefore the 50 watt laser light is about 22,727 times more intense than the sun at sea level over the area of the laser beam dot. Severe eye damage occurs very quickly.
Thanks!
I'm out of here. This ole Grampa needs about 6 hours of sleep time.
And that Clinton and his "advisors" could never pass a security clearance. Now if that doesn't scare the hell out of people I don't know what would???
Wow, how to reply to that? Do you understand what conservation of energy is? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm serious. Do you know what I'm talking about? I'm not making the comparison you're trying to make. I'm not stating it as fact, I'm merely pointing out that it's hard to imagine a laser fired over that distance not losing energy, in the form of heat, equivalent to the heat generated by a space heater, regardless of the time intervals over which it is evaluated. Let me try it this way...think of the energy of a space heater stored in a 'bank' (bank 1) over some time t1. Now, think of the heat energy dissipated by a laser, despite it's coherency, propagated over 5 miles of atmosphere over some time t2, and imagine that energy stored in a 'bank' (say, bank2). It's hard to imagine bank 2 having less energy than bank 1. Do you see my point now? Trust me, I fully understand the difference between energy and power (I've given you the canonical equations for them) and I understand the energy densities and other interesting geometric facts about lasers. Do you understand what I'm saying? No laser is perfectly efficient; it must lose energy over it's traversal through the atmosphere. Yes, it is just my physical intuition, but it suggests that despite the coherency of laser light bank2 MUST be more energetic than bank1. Pretty simple observation, really.
Hey, here's my "credentials"...
I graduated high school a year and a half early by taking the GED and never went back ever again... ;-)
Depends on the pulse width and the beam width. If the pulse is a microsecond and the beam disperses enough and if they expect the target to be a polished surface over ceramic then it might require that.
Seems like a dream weapon for the Terror enemy. Maybe this was a test if it indeed happened. Certainly isn't what we have been looking for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.