A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Flash Blinded By Green Laser



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old January 9th 05, 09:28 PM
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If our eyes were made out of paper, I might agree, but as Chris notes
they have substantial ability to remove heat. Have you ever boiled
water in a paper cup? Ever heard of it? Could it be that's why a GLP
held point-blank against one's cheek creates no perceptible increase in
temperature?

Nobody said they are harmless toys. Just that the alarmist viewpoints
being adopted by a small minority are not based in fact.


Tim Killian wrote:
Paper ignites at a delivered energy density 10W/cm^2, so even you

will
agree that at 1W/cm^2, some eye damage is _possible_. A 5 mW pointer
beam 1mm in diameter has an energy density of about .64 W/cm^2. As I
said earlier, imperfect optics can easily increase the energy density

of
a pointer above 1W/cm^2 because they only have to shrink the beam by

25%!

These are not harmless toys.


  #132  
Old January 9th 05, 09:38 PM
Florian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Have you ever boiled water in a paper cup? Ever heard of it?

You can do that in a microwave oven pretty easily. Water boils well=20
below the flashpoint of paper. Can you do it over a flame?

-Florian


  #133  
Old January 9th 05, 10:30 PM
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:38:44 GMT, "Florian"
wrote:

Have you ever boiled water in a paper cup? Ever heard of it?


You can do that in a microwave oven pretty easily. Water boils well
below the flashpoint of paper. Can you do it over a flame?


Yes. Fill a paper cup with water and put it on a gas stove. It will boil without
burning the paper. The paper cup is thin enough that the outside temperature
doesn't ever get much above the inside water temperature.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #134  
Old January 9th 05, 10:53 PM
Ralph Hertle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Chris L Peterson:

Regarding retinal damage I can offer some general remarks, however,
scientists have given these matters an enormous amount of thought and
scientific work. I would defer to their science. Casual remarks won't
suffice in the realm of that topic I am sure that you will agree.


Chris L Peterson wrote:

[clip]

You can have much higher energy densities at the retina if the spot size is
small


True. For example, the inverse square law will provide measurement
information based on facts.


because both the vitreous body and the retinal circulatory system
efficiently carry heat away.



The latter part of what you say doesn't follow logically from the first
part of the sentence. There seems to be an error of logic there.

You definitions need checking. The vitreous humour is in the lens. The
aqueous humour is within the eye.

The ability of any of the materials of the eye to carry heat away is
determined by several factors.

For example, the frequency of the light. Photons in the high frequency
range, e.g., some X-rays or Gamma radiation may pass right through the
materials of the eye without being absorbed. On the other hand, photons in
the IR or radio frequencies may be absorbed and raise the temperature of
the materials. Also, some visible frequencies will pass through the lens
without being absorbed while some visible frequencies are absorbed by the
aqueous humour causing chemical changes and darkening of the aqueous
humour. The heat produced is a result of the frequency of the photons, and
that is but one of the causes that are simultaneously operative.

The materials of the eye, speaking of elements and molecules, absorb,
reflect, or transmit various frequencies of photons according to their
atomic properties. IR frequencies, for example, are readily absorbed by
water raising the temperature of the water. Visible light striking the
retina results in complex chemical changes, and there is not that much of a
resulting increase of temperature. The photons go into combination with the
rods and cones and electrons result.

The eye is not really structure as an efficient heat dissappation device,
and the nerve cells have specific capacities as electrochemical
transmitters. The tolerance range of the eye to various photon energy
levels is limited to very small amounts, and the eye is easily damaged.



Thermal damage to the retina by a 5mW visible light
laser is impossible, pure and simple.




You have to specify the area that receives the light, the frequency, and
the time duration of the light, as well as to specify the receiving
biological materials and their sensitivities and abilities to accommodate
the light.

Human structures are finite in their abilities to absorb, transmit,
reflect, or convert or re-radiate incoming frequencies. The rods and cones
have specific limits in their ability to convert photons of certain
frequencies into changed molecules and electrons. Beyond a certain point
the body simply absorbs the photons and their energy, the cells die or
become inoperative, and the body becomes a spent charcoal briquette.



The rare (and largely anectodal) reports
of injury from low power lasers are presumably associated with phototoxicity.

[clip]



I think that the reason you stated as "presumably associated" is an
insufficient answer in the light of the enormous amount of science that has
been generated on the numerous subclassifications of the subject. You may
want to come up with a little more information on the matter.

I would ask the question whether photons are toxic.


Ralph Hertle
  #135  
Old January 9th 05, 11:24 PM
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:53:50 GMT, Ralph Hertle wrote:

because both the vitreous body and the retinal circulatory system
efficiently carry heat away.


The latter part of what you say doesn't follow logically from the first
part of the sentence. There seems to be an error of logic there.

You definitions need checking. The vitreous humour is in the lens. The
aqueous humour is within the eye.


The aqueous humor is in the anterior chamber of the eye- between the cornea and
the lens, and is basically water with some electrolytes. The vitreous humor
(also called the vitreous body) is in the anterior chamber of the eye, behind
the lens and in front of the retina. It is in contact with the retina, and
provides a primary mechanism for carrying heat away from it.


The ability of any of the materials of the eye to carry heat away is
determined by several factors.

For example, the frequency of the light...


Which is why I am careful to talk about radiation in the visible range.


The eye is not really structure as an efficient heat dissappation device...


Actually, it is quite good. Consider for example that brief exposure to the Sun
is rarely harmful. Exposure to the Sun through a telescope, however, almost
instantly destroys the retina. The energy density on the retina is the same in
both cases, but the latter overwhelms the ability of the retinal blood supply
and the vitreous body to remove heat. As long as the energy density is low, or
the spot size is small, the eye will do a good job of protecting itself.


Thermal damage to the retina by a 5mW visible light
laser is impossible, pure and simple.


You have to specify the area that receives the light, the frequency, and
the time duration of the light, as well as to specify the receiving
biological materials and their sensitivities and abilities to accommodate
the light.


You do not need to specify these things. 5mW of visible light, delivered to the
retina through the cornea, will not cause thermal damage. This has been verified
experimentally. Given a long enough exposure- minutes probably- there may be
damage that is non-thermal, however.


The rare (and largely anectodal) reports
of injury from low power lasers are presumably associated with phototoxicity.


I think that the reason you stated as "presumably associated" is an
insufficient answer in the light of the enormous amount of science that has
been generated on the numerous subclassifications of the subject. You may
want to come up with a little more information on the matter.

I would ask the question whether photons are toxic.


Retinal exposure to high light intensities is damaging. This is a major concern
when performing ophthalmic surgery, as the light source in the microscope can be
bright enough to cause macular problems. Note that this is not a thermal effect.
It is an area of active study, because phototoxicity is not well understood.
Some people with certain macular problems can have an acute reaction to bright
light. There are cases of partial vision loss following nothing more than
routine examination with a slit lamp or ophthalmoscope. However, these
conditions are rare, and often result in early vision loss just from normal
exposure to daylight conditions over a period of years.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #136  
Old January 9th 05, 11:46 PM
David G. Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Florian wrote:

Have you ever boiled water in a paper cup? Ever heard of it?



You can do that in a microwave oven pretty easily. Water boils well
below the flashpoint of paper. Can you do it over a flame?

-Florian


Yes. Just ask any Boy Scout. Been there, done that, drank the coffee....

Dave N
  #137  
Old January 29th 05, 05:09 AM
HAVRILIAK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes. Just ask any Boy Scout. Been there, done that, drank the coffee

Did you use a microwave to boil the water
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More on Green Laser Concerns.... Ted Nichols II Amateur Astronomy 8 January 5th 05 07:06 PM
Extremely Powerful Green Laser Pointer Beam Jon Isaacs Amateur Astronomy 4 December 20th 04 02:06 PM
A Taxonomy of Auroras Canopus Amateur Astronomy 0 November 12th 04 09:03 AM
Our future as a species - Fermi Paradox revisted - Where they all are william mook Policy 157 November 19th 03 01:19 AM
Green Hills Helps JPL go to Mars Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 0 August 11th 03 05:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.