Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Laser Products I Hate

funraniumlabs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 65 posts

Re: Laser Products I Hate

#11

Post by throwanem »

damnfine wrote: post #2

Interesting that he compares them to firearms, and all that entails. With power levels increasing, we may see a viable laser rifle soon, and with it, a need for a new regulatory structure (or adoption and expansion of an existing one, atf, etc.) They seem to have many of the same public safety aspects, but will someone popularize a legitimate 'Sporting Use' for these devices before they are sold as 'Death Rays to Bli…

> we may see a viable laser rifle soon

We won't. It's been a while since I compared the muzzle energy of a rifle bullet and that of a relatively powerful laser, and I don't have the time to dig up the comparison again right now, but the tl;dr: is that we won't see an even theoretically man-portable laser that can put a hole through someone for a very long time, if ever. Setting things on fire and damaging light sensors, sure - but those tasks are absurdly easy by comparison with rearranging bulk matter.

Re: Laser Products I Hate

#12

Post by anfractuosity »

dhimes wrote: post #7
anfractuosity wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how practical a portable laser gun would be, as I'm imagining a laser diode array would need to be amazingly powerful (I'm assuming much greater than the 40W version in the video?) and they'd require a very beefy power source. It seems diode lasers are up to 60% efficient? It looks like you can get extremely high power pulsed laser arrays though.

It's not so much the power as the total energy delivered that matters. So, in that sense, it will depend on the batteries (or whatever storage mechanism they use) as much as the lasers themselves.

Yeah definitely, I can't help but think the power source needed would be very heavy too.

Re: Laser Products I Hate

#13

Post by Filligree »

atemerev wrote: post #10
damnfine wrote: post #2

Interesting that he compares them to firearms, and all that entails. With power levels increasing, we may see a viable laser rifle soon, and with it, a need for a new regulatory structure (or adoption and expansion of an existing one, atf, etc.) They seem to have many of the same public safety aspects, but will someone popularize a legitimate 'Sporting Use' for these devices before they are sold as 'Death Rays to Bli…

I don't think so. Lasers are ineffective as lethal weapons (they are very effective as blinding weapons, which is probably worse and inhumane).

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be blinded than die.

Re: Laser Products I Hate

#14

Post by joncrocks »

Filligree wrote: post #13
atemerev wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. Lasers are ineffective as lethal weapons (they are very effective as blinding weapons, which is probably worse and inhumane).

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be blinded than die.

I don't think you get a choice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventi...

Re: Laser Products I Hate

#15

Post by analog31 »

rjzzleep wrote: post #9

On that note, does anyone have good resources on building laser powered products? I figured it would make sense to start by reading an optics textbook. [1] Something like Building Electro-Optical Systems by Hobbs. First problem is that I wouldn't even know which ones good. The next problem I see and which the article touches on is that the wrong setting might cause irreparable tissue damage. Which by extension means…

I have Hobbs, and it's a great general book. But it may fall into that fine literary genre of "explanations for people who already understand things." Hobbs assumes a fairly advanced understanding of physics and electronics.

You might be able to learn how to make gadgets that work at the prototype level, but designing a potentially dangerous product is engineering. I don't know how you do that without working as an engineer for a long time.

Disclosure: I'm a scientist who works in laser product development, among other things, but not a licensed engineer.

Re: Laser Products I Hate

#16

Post by gambiting »

Filligree wrote: post #13
atemerev wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. Lasers are ineffective as lethal weapons (they are very effective as blinding weapons, which is probably worse and inhumane).

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be blinded than die.

If I absolutely had to pick, and the choice was between 1) get shot and maybe survive; or 2) 100% chance of getting blinded - I'd pick the first one.

Re: Laser Products I Hate

#17

Post by adrianN »

throwanem wrote: post #11
damnfine wrote: post #2

Interesting that he compares them to firearms, and all that entails. With power levels increasing, we may see a viable laser rifle soon, and with it, a need for a new regulatory structure (or adoption and expansion of an existing one, atf, etc.) They seem to have many of the same public safety aspects, but will someone popularize a legitimate 'Sporting Use' for these devices before they are sold as 'Death Rays to Bli…

> we may see a viable laser rifle soon We won't. It's been a while since I compared the muzzle energy of a rifle bullet and that of a relatively powerful laser, and I don't have the time to dig up the comparison again right now, but the tl;dr: is that we won't see an even theoretically man-portable laser that can put a hole through someone for a very long time, if ever. Setting things on fire and damaging light senso…

A rifle has a muzzle energy of a couple kilojoules. So you're looking at lasers in the kW power range. I doubt that you could do comparable damage even if you could deliver comparable energy. Flesh doesn't conduct heat terribly well and vaporizing a centimeter of skin is not very lethal.

Re: Laser Products I Hate

#19

Post by stavros »

gambiting wrote: post #16
Filligree wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be blinded than die.

If I absolutely had to pick, and the choice was between 1) get shot and maybe survive; or 2) 100% chance of getting blinded - I'd pick the first one.

Why are you comparing a weapon that has to hit a whole person and misses to a weapon that has to hit a 5mm retina and somehow never misses?
Post reply on HN