Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ableChair

It isn't off topic.

The energy levels it takes to damage the eye are relatively low.

Path loss does not go up with an increase in power level until the air ionizes. That level of energy is huge. You'd vaporize the pilot at those power levels...


255 posted on 09/28/2004 10:28:28 PM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies ]


To: DB

You're responding to a point I wasn't making. I was talking about the space heater laser comparison. The comparison was a conservation of energy comparison. Let me say it again: 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. Even if you adjust the power levels and exposure times, I don't see it. As for the point you DID make, that was brought up by a different poster and yes, I can see that. You're basically saying that the laser energy and energy loss relation is not linear.


268 posted on 09/28/2004 10:40:04 PM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies ]

To: DB; ableChair
Path loss does not go up with an increase in power level until the air ionizes.

Air doesnt ionize in the near IR until well into the gigawatt regime. I work at megawatt intensities in air all the time.

That level of energy is huge. You'd vaporize the pilot at those power levels...

No, it would make an annoying spark on his skin, like getting whacked with a rubber band (high peak power, not energy). Much lower levels than this will cause eye damage.

279 posted on 09/28/2004 10:48:23 PM PDT by AdamSelene235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson