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.
This could be some type of industrial laser, stripped of it's safety equipment and with sights mounted.
So9
No, no, no, Swervie! See post #432 for an explanation of what this was. Clears everything right up.
Ohh, I see.
A 666 nanometer laser.
That is visible red.
I would have expected infra-red.
So9
Since I am engaged in laser radar every day, I am more than familiar with the transmission windows.
People like you are so F'kn hilarious...and insecure. You rudely and arrogantly tout all your BS credentials and trade-school degrees like I'm supposed to be impressed.
I haven't named any credentials yet. As far as trade schools, mine is nicknamed North Avenue Trade School.
I thought an 'expert' like you would have all that handy? So, plotting thermal efficiency against wavelength, where's the maxima (hint: find the first and second derivatives)? Oh, that's right, you missed Calculus. You're a f'kn moron. STFU.
I've taken gobs of higher math. There isn't any simple equation to describe atmospheric transmission because it is the product of multiple molecular absorbtions which are quite complex. The charts you need are empirical.
Ok, but you dont need that much CW light for eye damage. A couple watts will suffice.
Right. The green would be very dazzling as well as destructive. However the 1064 is also a good propagator as well as very dangerous to the eyes.
A good quality collimating lens or beam expander would keep the beam focused over many miles. You won't ablate metal, but you could cause serious eye damage.
Yep. Mode quality takes some work but is not too hard.
I've never seen the color of 1064. I have some fiber coupled 808's that have a dim pink color.
There is definitely a retinal response at 800 nm, however, if you can see 800 nm it means there is a buttload of it and you need to don safety glasses.
Check it out with an IR viewer or a CCD.
At higher powers it looks sort of blood red.
bump
I Googled "fly the doughnuts" and got no hits. What are doughnuts? So are wasting money on approach lights and runway lights? What is your theory on the recent laser incident?
I'm very confused about this. Blackdog says that commercial pilots can't normally see the runway on approach. Why did the Concorde have that mobile drooping nose? I thought that was so the pilots could see the runway.
Were you wearing protective goggles?
Wouldn't LANTIRN an IR laser? The Delta pilots claimed they saw the light in the cockpit.
The Glideslope coupled with a localizer are basically dual axis course deviation indicators. In the center of the guage there is a small circle with dots migrating out to the 12,3,6,9 oclock positions which represent both horizontal and vertical courses. One dot on a localizer represents maybe ten feet up/down and left/right when on final and inside the outer marker. That is what you are fixated on. When a minimum decent altitude is only 300' above ground level on a foggy/cloudy night, just what makes you think seeing outside the cockpit is really of much value? It's not. Spending time looking outside gets you killed. Nope, airspeed, course deviation, fuel management, aircraft configuration, radio communications, and such keep you too busy to look outside much. The first time you do a full blind landing(with your safety pilot) you'll be amazed at how much you must trust your instruments. A radar altimeter is the bomb, but if you have your altimeter set correctly, you'll touch down at precisely the published height of the runway. Had the Wellstone idiots set their altimeter correctly and kept their heads inside the cockpit, Wellstone would be alive today. Pilots who just have to see pavement tend to land on taxiways too! You can also do blind departures(wearing a special hood that only lets you see the panel) and actually depart/takeoff and fly the published or assigned SID, and as you are on takeoff roll and departure, you never deviate a few feet from the runway centerline. It's amazingly accurate instrumentation. That's why it costs more than the airplane itself in many cases.
So, umm, what's the difference between 'absorbed' and 'reach the surface'? I'll let you figure out your error. The difference between your 'sources' and the Cambridge Atlas is that your sources are less detailed. Cambridge is breaking the radiative and convection 'blocking' down into greater detail. But, wait, I already said all that at 3 a.m. didn't I?
Word.
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.