From: Jeff R. on

<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hp3sod$qmr$2(a)news.albasani.net...
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> 3) You have the problem of blinding people with the laser beam in the eye
>
>
> You use the same reason you called BS on someone else for using? LOL!
>
> Stephanie

There is a less-than-subtle difference between rangefinding at 1-6 metres
with a possibly invisible laser, and shakingly aiming a few milliwatts
through a murky atmosphere and a scratched window from 1-2000m range. Look
up the "inverse square" rule.

--
Jeff R.


From: Ray Fischer on
stephe_k(a)yahoo.com <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> 3) You have the problem of blinding people with the laser beam in the eye
>
>You use the same reason you called BS on someone else for using?

No. Learn to read, idiot. I was questioning putting someone out of
commission for half a year from a laser miles away. That's different
from people being temporarily blinded by a laser just a couple of feet
away.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: J. Clarke on
On 4/2/2010 3:01 AM, Jeff R. wrote:
> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hp3sod$qmr$2(a)news.albasani.net...
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>>> 3) You have the problem of blinding people with the laser beam in the eye
>>
>>
>> You use the same reason you called BS on someone else for using? LOL!
>>
>> Stephanie
>
> There is a less-than-subtle difference between rangefinding at 1-6 metres
> with a possibly invisible laser, and shakingly aiming a few milliwatts
> through a murky atmosphere and a scratched window from 1-2000m range. Look
> up the "inverse square" rule.

At 2000 meter range you're at "infinity" on any lens of which I'm aware.

The rangefinger just has to be able to "reach" to the point at which any
lens made for the camera can be set at "infinity" and that's not really
all that long a range.
From: Doug McDonald on
It should be possible to make an eye-safe laser rangefinder system simply by
using a laser diode in the near IR at a wavelength such that the absorption
by the water in the eye removed all the energy well before it got to the retina.
The energy in such a system is of negligible danger except to the
retina.

Doug McDonald
From: stephe_k on
Savageduck wrote:

>
> My point was, the technology exists to produce "eye-safe" laser
> rangefinder devices. The real issue is going to be fine tuning &
> coupling that range finder technology with a laser AF lens.

And my point was, do these "eye safe" range finders cause temporary eye
discomfort if shot at someones eye? If so, I doubt people would like
having something like this shot at them. Just because it doesn't cause
permanent eye damage, doesn't mean it would be something people would
tolerate on a regular basis.

Stephanie