APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by alter-ego » Mon May 21, 2018 3:33 am

Chris Peterson wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 1:41 pm ...
Well, I was discussing eye safety here. Yes, there are specs for pilots. However, realistically, there is still no danger. A pilot will experience more dazzle from a close lightning strike than she will for the microseconds that one of these lasers will illuminate the cockpit. It's not like a plane flying over this observatory is about to land! Pilots are trained to deal with light dazzle. They will experience more energy in their eye from a conventional advertising searchlight over a city than from one of these lasers.
...
I did more research and calcs to reconcile a apparently large discrepancy between the MPE calculation and your confident claim that retinal damage would not occur with an LGS. There are factors that both reduced and increased exposure times for damage thresholds:
  • LGS profile is Gaussian, therefore the peak irradiance at the beam center = 2x higher than average = 62mJ/cm2
  • I found a reference claiming that in order to assure a safe exposure limit, tabulated MPE values are an "order of magnitude" below damage thresholds
I calculated exposure time limits for the LGS incorporating the above corrections, and the exposure time for damage from solar radiation (400nm to 1400nm:
  • ~0.25 seconds is coincidentally the time limit for on-axis viewing of the LGS beam
  • 10 to 20 seconds is the limit one can look at the sun
    Note: This is in reasonable agreement with the retinal burn a woman suffered while looking at the 2017 solar eclipse from New York. She estimated her viewing time was ~20 seconds, and she was wearing some bogus eclipse glasses.
Allowing for significant uncertainty in iris aperture size, I've concluded that:
  • One must exercise more caution than I believe you said (or implied) for intrabeam viewing of a 22W LGS laser, and
  • Exposure time is longer for retinal damage from the sun than required for damage from the LGS source
However:
  • The calculation(s) do support the very low probability that damage from a fly-over due to a short exposure time (unless you're in a helicopter)
    I completely agree with you on this point.
BTW, these new calculations have also reconciled my own benign experience with above-MPE exposure to 5mW to 10mW HeNe lasers without damage.

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by Chris Peterson » Sat May 19, 2018 1:41 pm

alter-ego wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 4:43 am
Chris Peterson wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:47 pm ...
The smaller spot will actually cause a less damage. But in either case, blood flow will carry away the heat. (In reality, the optics of the eye will probably not allow such a small focus for a point source light.)
A good eye will focus to ≤20 microns on the retina
That would be a good eye indeed! For a bright point source, it will usually be quite a bit larger. And for somebody making the effort to stare, they will almost instantly start producing tears and that will further degrade the spot.
Anyway, again, the point is that these lasers pose no safety risk to anybody passing through them from above.
That is not a true statement, at least the ANSI safety criteria and ESO's operation protocol will not agree with you. For a night-time fly-over the irradiance at a pilot's eye is 10x higher than the 0.25sec blink response MPE (Maximum Permissible Exposure).
Well, I was discussing eye safety here. Yes, there are specs for pilots. However, realistically, there is still no danger. A pilot will experience more dazzle from a close lightning strike than she will for the microseconds that one of these lasers will illuminate the cockpit. It's not like a plane flying over this observatory is about to land! Pilots are trained to deal with light dazzle. They will experience more energy in their eye from a conventional advertising searchlight over a city than from one of these lasers.
Having worked in the laser field for decades, I think your comment is unsafe speculation.
Not at all. I was a laser safety officer at Beckman Instruments for some years, and then spent many more years developing surgical eye equipment, including tools designed to focus lasers onto the retina. This is an area I'm very familiar with.

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by orin stepanek » Sat May 19, 2018 12:18 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 1:56 pm
orin stepanek wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 12:17 pm
That's the same sharpness you would get if the telescope were in space.
That's pretty darn good; I'd say :D 8-)
Yes, though the observation is a little misleading. This performance is only at longer wavelengths, and only in regions right around the artificial guide stars. If you want a sharp, wide field image, the little bitty Hubble mirror still outperforms any ground-based telescopes, regardless of their size or adaptive optics capabilities.
Hi Chris! Oh; I'll never take Hubble for granted as it really opened up Space imagery!

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by neufer » Sat May 19, 2018 10:57 am

alter-ego wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 4:43 am
Chris Peterson wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:47 pm ...
The smaller spot will actually cause a less damage. But in either case, blood flow will carry away the heat. (In reality, the optics of the eye will probably not allow such a small focus for a point source light.)
A good eye will focus to ≤20 microns on the retina
Anyway, again, the point is that these lasers pose no safety risk to anybody passing through them from above.
That is not a true statement, at least the ANSI safety criteria and ESO's operation protocol will not agree with you. For a night-time fly-over the irradiance at a pilot's eye is 10x higher than the 0.25sec blink response MPE (Maximum Permissible Exposure).
4 Laser Guide Star Facility wrote: All the operations at the 4LGSF will follow a protocol to avoid any risk to aircraft. The laser system is equipped with an automatic aircraft avoidance system that shuts down the lasers if an aircraft ventures too close to the beams.
For obvious reasons, these safety limits have a certain amount of margin built in, and the exposure details are complicated by several variables. There would likely be cases of temporary vision impairment, but there is not data to support the certainty of your statement. Having worked in the laser field for decades, I think your comment is unsafe speculation.
Interesting information, AE.

Of course it is dangerous for a pilot to be even temporarily blinded...especially during landing.

While Chris & I were having a more academic debate about the danger of permanent eye damage it is always important to keep in mind that there are folks out there who will play around with staring at either the Sun or a laser pointer (and certainly far more who will play around with aiming their laser pointer at others). Regardless of who is correct in our little academic debate I am glad to have landed on the more responsible side of our debate (for a change).

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by alter-ego » Sat May 19, 2018 4:43 am

Chris Peterson wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:47 pm ...
The smaller spot will actually cause a less damage. But in either case, blood flow will carry away the heat. (In reality, the optics of the eye will probably not allow such a small focus for a point source light.)
A good eye will focus to ≤20 microns on the retina
Anyway, again, the point is that these lasers pose no safety risk to anybody passing through them from above.
That is not a true statement, at least the ANSI safety criteria and ESO's operation protocol will not agree with you. For a night-time fly-over the irradiance at a pilot's eye is 10x higher than the 0.25sec blink response MPE (Maximum Permissible Exposure).
4 Laser Guide Star Facility wrote: All the operations at the 4LGSF will follow a protocol to avoid any risk to aircraft. The laser system is equipped with an automatic aircraft avoidance system that shuts down the lasers if an aircraft ventures too close to the beams.
For obvious reasons, these safety limits have a certain amount of margin built in, and the exposure details are complicated by several variables. There would likely be cases of temporary vision impairment, but there is not data to support the certainty of your statement. Having worked in the laser field for decades, I think your comment is unsafe speculation.

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by Chris Peterson » Sat May 19, 2018 4:35 am

Bellerophon wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 3:26 am
neufer wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 4:21 pm
Bellerophon wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 3:13 pm
My first thought was that the lasers could damage the drone. I found out they are powerful enough to do so (each beam delivers 22 watts), but the beam diameter is 30 cm, so they'd do no more harm than a reading light (not to say that the laser might not damage the drone's camera, though). https://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/ ... str/4lgsf/
It sure looks like the drone's camera passes right through the beam at 4:26, so apparently it's not enough to damage the drone's camera.
Yeah, not enough energy for that. The camera aperture is way too small. Those cameras can image the Sun without damage; the lower power laser isn't going to be a problem.

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by Bellerophon » Sat May 19, 2018 3:26 am

neufer wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 4:21 pm
Bellerophon wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 3:13 pm
My first thought was that the lasers could damage the drone. I found out they are powerful enough to do so (each beam delivers 22 watts), but the beam diameter is 30 cm, so they'd do no more harm than a reading light (not to say that the laser might not damage the drone's camera, though). https://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/ ... str/4lgsf/
It sure looks like the drone's camera passes right through the beam at 4:26, so apparently it's not enough to damage the drone's camera.

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by geckzilla » Sat May 19, 2018 3:16 am

D Negvesky wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 1:20 am appears to be CG superimposed on photo background. Actual photos are in gallery and are even more impressive.
Or, I mean, you could just not say this if you're not sure. These lasers are relatively rarely photographed, and because of their unfamiliar appearance and similarity to actual cg animation, it is easy for your brain to pattern match it to what is more familiar to you. There are enough real photos of them from various photographers that you'd find they all pretty much look like this if you looked elsewhere.

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by D Negvesky » Sat May 19, 2018 1:20 am

appears to be CG superimposed on photo background. Actual photos are in gallery and are even more impressive.

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by Chris Peterson » Fri May 18, 2018 10:29 pm

neufer wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 9:19 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:47 pm
neufer wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:41 pm
Your own calculations put the total light entering the eye as roughly equivalent to a Sun stare.

However, the laser light will be focused down to a retina point corresponding to
about a half minute of arc (for 20/20 vision) rather than a half degree of arc for the Sun.
The smaller spot will actually cause a less damage. But in either case, blood flow will carry away the heat.
(In reality, the optics of the eye will probably not allow such a small focus for a point source light.)

I was basing the small 30" focus on the optics of the eye.

If the same amount of light power is focused on a smaller spot then, of course, more damage is done. The advantage comes from both a greater ability to move out of the way of a laser beam and to divert one's gaze.
No. The amount of damage has to do with the number of retinal cells that are affected. So a smaller size may well lead to less damage. But in any case, you're not going to focus a point source to that small a spot. Do not confuse the theoretical resolution of the eye, which depends upon the MTF of the system, with the smallest point the eye can focus.
Chris Peterson wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:47 pm
Anyway, again, the point is that these lasers pose no safety risk to anybody passing through them from above.
Not everyone is smart enough to avert their gaze.
Since we're talking about something that requires many seconds of staring to result in damage, and which naturally triggers both a blink reflex and an aversion reflex, I don't think many smarts are required.

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by neufer » Fri May 18, 2018 9:19 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:47 pm
neufer wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:41 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:19 pm
Suffice to say, a 22 W visible light laser expanded to 30 cm diameter poses no real threat to vision, and isn't going to look brighter than the Sun.
Your own calculations put the total light entering the eye as roughly equivalent to a Sun stare.

However, the laser light will be focused down to a retina point corresponding to
about a half minute of arc (for 20/20 vision) rather than a half degree of arc for the Sun.
The smaller spot will actually cause a less damage. But in either case, blood flow will carry away the heat.
(In reality, the optics of the eye will probably not allow such a small focus for a point source light.)

I was basing the small 30" focus on the optics of the eye.

If the same amount of light power is focused on a smaller spot then, of course, more damage is done. The advantage comes from both a greater ability to move out of the way of a laser beam and to divert one's gaze.
Chris Peterson wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:47 pm
Anyway, again, the point is that these lasers pose no safety risk to anybody passing through them from above.
Not everyone is smart enough to avert their gaze.

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by Chris Peterson » Fri May 18, 2018 7:47 pm

neufer wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:41 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:19 pm
Suffice to say, a 22 W visible light laser expanded to 30 cm diameter poses no real threat to vision, and isn't going to look brighter than the Sun.
Your own calculations put the total light entering the eye as roughly equivalent to a Sun stare.

However, the laser light will be focused down to a retina point corresponding to
about a half minute of arc (for 20/20 vision) rather than a half degree of arc for the Sun.
The smaller spot will actually cause a less damage. But in either case, blood flow will carry away the heat. (In reality, the optics of the eye will probably not allow such a small focus for a point source light.)

Anyway, again, the point is that these lasers pose no safety risk to anybody passing through them from above.

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by neufer » Fri May 18, 2018 7:41 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:19 pm
Suffice to say, a 22 W visible light laser expanded to 30 cm diameter poses no real threat to vision, and isn't going to look brighter than the Sun.
Your own calculations put the total light entering the eye as roughly equivalent to a Sun stare.

However, the laser light will be focused down to a retina point corresponding to
about a half minute of arc (for 20/20 vision) rather than a half degree of arc for the Sun.

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by Chris Peterson » Fri May 18, 2018 7:19 pm

neufer wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:12 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 6:13 pm
neufer wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 5:44 pm
  • 300 W/m2 would feel kind of nice on one's skin;
    however, coming effectively from a point source
    staring at it would be much worse than staring at the Sun.
Given an eye pupil size of 2 mm (typical when viewing bright light), inserting your eye into a beam with a power density of 300 W/m2 means you're receiving 1 mW. The same as if you looked directly into the lowest power laser pointers. Staring at these is less dangerous than staring at the Sun.
Well...one's eye pupil size may be only 2 mm on a bright sunny day but not at night... at least not at first.

And I would imagine that laser pointer spots are also larger than 2 mm.
Yeah, but we're talking about staring into the beam. Even if you're exposed to the beam at night, and have a 5mm pupil, you're still only looking at 6 mW into the eye, which isn't going to do any instant damage. The pupil will close down in less than a second.

At close range, laser pointers have spot sizes on the order of 2 mm or slightly less.

Suffice to say, a 22 W visible light laser expanded to 30 cm diameter poses no real threat to vision, and isn't going to look brighter than the Sun.

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by neufer » Fri May 18, 2018 7:12 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 6:13 pm
neufer wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 5:44 pm
  • 300 W/m2 would feel kind of nice on one's skin;
    however, coming effectively from a point source
    staring at it would be much worse than staring at the Sun.
Given an eye pupil size of 2 mm (typical when viewing bright light), inserting your eye into a beam with a power density of 300 W/m2 means you're receiving 1 mW. The same as if you looked directly into the lowest power laser pointers. Staring at these is less dangerous than staring at the Sun.
Well...one's eye pupil size may be only 2 mm on a bright sunny day but not at night... at least not at first.

And I would imagine that laser pointer spots are also larger than 2 mm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety wrote:
Class II (Output power may be up to 1 mW): The blink reflex (glare aversion response to bright lights) of the human eye will prevent eye damage, unless the person deliberately stares into the beam for an extended period. Intentional suppression of the blink reflex could lead to eye injury. (Some laser pointers and measuring instruments are class 2.)

Class IIa: A region in the low-power end of Class II where the laser requires in excess of 1000 seconds of continuous viewing to produce a burn to the retina. Commercial laser scanners are in this subclass.
https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~jharlow/teaching/lasers.html wrote:
Are Laser Pointers Dangerous to Pilots?
by Jason Harlow

My Experiment:

I took 3 different green laser pointers, all 5 mW, all of which were purchased for less than $50 each. I measured the spot size at 1, 10, 15, 40 and 97 m. I then plotted distance versus beam diameter and did a best-fit linear slope. I found a slope of 1.04 +/- 0.09 mm/m and a y-intercept of 1.4 +/- 0.5 mm. This means that, at the laser pointer itself, the beam diameter is about 1.5 mm. As it travels, the diameter increases by 1 mm for every 1 m away from the laser pointer.

At a distance of 5 m away from the laser, the beam diameter is 7 mm, which is a typical diameter of the dark-adapted pupil (Bradley JC, Bentley KC, Mughal AI, Bodhireddy H and Brown SM 2011, Journal of Refractive Surgery, v.27 issue.3, pg.202). This means that if you are within 5 m of the laser and it is shot directly into one of your dark-adapted pupils, all 5 mW of power will enter your eye, and then be focused onto your retina.

At a distance of 10 m, the beam diameter is 12 mm, and its area is 110 sq-mm. Since a 7 mm-diameter dark-adapted pupil has an area of 34 sq-mm, only 1.5 mW of power will enter your eye if this laser is shot directly in.

At 100 m, the beam is 10 cm in diameter with an area of 8700 sq-mm, which is 250 times bigger than your dark-adapted pupil. The maximum power which can enter your eye at this distance is 0.02 mW.

At a distance of 1 km, which would be typical for a low-flying aircraft, the maximum power which could enter a pilot's eye is 0.0002 mW, or 0.2 micro-Watts.

Note that Class 1 lasers have powers less than 0.024 mW, and they carry no warning label because they are incapable of causing eye damage. My little experiment indicates that a Class 3A laser-pointer (5 mW) becomes equivalent to a Class 1 laser at a distance of 90 m or farther.

As for actual retinal damage, it has been estimated that it would take 10 seconds of staring directly into a class 3A laser in order to damage your retina. But, in practice this is impossible to do because it feels very painful and you immediately look away.>>

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by Chris Peterson » Fri May 18, 2018 6:13 pm

neufer wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 5:44 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 4:25 pm
Bellerophon wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 3:13 pm
My first thought was that the lasers could damage the drone. I found out they are powerful enough to do so (each beam delivers 22 watts), but the beam diameter is 30 cm, so they'd do no more harm than a reading light (not to say that the laser might not damage the drone's camera, though). https://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/ ... str/4lgsf/
While it's certainly true that the energy density is far too low to damage the drone, don't let that 22 W value fool you. That's 22 watts of luminous power- an energy density of 0.03 J/cm2 [0.03 (J/s)/cm2 = 0.03 W/cm2 = 300 W/m2]- a great deal more than you'd get from a 22 W incandescent bulb.
  • 300 W/m2 would feel kind of nice on one's skin;
    however, coming effectively from a point source
    staring at it would be much worse than staring at the Sun.
Given an eye pupil size of 2 mm (typical when viewing bright light), inserting your eye into a beam with a power density of 300 W/m2 means you're receiving 1 mW. The same as if you looked directly into the lowest power laser pointers. Staring at these is less dangerous than staring at the Sun.

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by neufer » Fri May 18, 2018 5:44 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 4:25 pm
Bellerophon wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 3:13 pm
My first thought was that the lasers could damage the drone. I found out they are powerful enough to do so (each beam delivers 22 watts), but the beam diameter is 30 cm, so they'd do no more harm than a reading light (not to say that the laser might not damage the drone's camera, though). https://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/ ... str/4lgsf/
While it's certainly true that the energy density is far too low to damage the drone, don't let that 22 W value fool you. That's 22 watts of luminous power- an energy density of 0.03 J/cm2 [0.03 (J/s)/cm2 = 0.03 W/cm2 = 300 W/m2]- a great deal more than you'd get from a 22 W incandescent bulb.
  • 300 W/m2 would feel kind of nice on one's skin;
    however, coming effectively from a point source
    staring at it would be much worse than staring at the Sun.

    [The visual equivalent, roughly, of a supernova about a light year away.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance wrote:
<<Average annual solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth's atmosphere is roughly 1361 W/m2. The Sun's rays are attenuated as they pass through the atmosphere, leaving maximum normal surface irradiance at approximately 1000 W /m2 at sea level on a clear day. When 1361 W/m2 is arriving above the atmosphere (when the sun is at the zenith in a cloudless sky), global radiation on a horizontal surface at ground level is about 1120 W/m2 including radiation scattered or reemitted by atmosphere and surroundings.>>

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by Chris Peterson » Fri May 18, 2018 4:25 pm

Bellerophon wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 3:13 pm My first thought was that the lasers could damage the drone. I found out they are powerful enough to do so (each beam delivers 22 watts), but the beam diameter is 30 cm, so they'd do no more harm than a reading light (not to say that the laser might not damage the drone's camera, though). https://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/ ... str/4lgsf/
While it's certainly true that the energy density is far too low to damage the drone, don't let that 22 W value fool you. That's 22 watts of luminous power- an energy density of 0.03 J/cm2- a great deal more than you'd get from a 22 W incandescent bulb.

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by neufer » Fri May 18, 2018 4:21 pm

Bellerophon wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 3:13 pm
My first thought was that the lasers could damage the drone. I found out they are powerful enough to do so (each beam delivers 22 watts), but the beam diameter is 30 cm, so they'd do no more harm than a reading light (not to say that the laser might not damage the drone's camera, though). https://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/ ... str/4lgsf/
https://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/paranal-observatory/vlt/vlt-instr/4lgsf/ wrote:
<<All the operations at the 4LGSF will follow a protocol to avoid any risk to aircraft. The laser system is equipped with an automatic aircraft avoidance system that shuts down the lasers if an aircraft ventures too close to the beams.>>

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by bystander » Fri May 18, 2018 4:13 pm

Askin Y wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 4:03 pm The smaller scopes have tracks for moving them around, why is that? And why 25 or 30 parking spaces for 3 scopes?

It's actually 4 scopes. Called auxiliary telescopes, they are part of the VLTI (Very Large Telescope Interferometer). They are repositioned according to observational requirements.

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by neufer » Fri May 18, 2018 4:13 pm

Askin Y wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 4:03 pm
And why 25 or 30 parking spaces for 3 scopes?
The have shuttle buses to minimize headlight interference :?:

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by Misdirection » Fri May 18, 2018 4:07 pm

The "Discuss" link takes you to yesterday's * discussion.

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by Askin Y » Fri May 18, 2018 4:03 pm

The smaller scopes have tracks for moving them around, why is that? And why 25 or 30 parking spaces for 3 scopes?

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by Bellerophon » Fri May 18, 2018 3:13 pm

My first thought was that the lasers could damage the drone. I found out they are powerful enough to do so (each beam delivers 22 watts), but the beam diameter is 30 cm, so they'd do no more harm than a reading light (not to say that the laser might not damage the drone's camera, though). https://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/ ... str/4lgsf/

Re: APOD: Attack of the Laser Guide Stars (2018 May 18)

by Chris Peterson » Fri May 18, 2018 2:28 pm

neufer wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 2:18 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 1:53 pm
JohnD wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 8:35 am
What are we seeing in the APOD and video? This observatory is high altitude, in a very dry desert.
We can see the beams, so they are illuminating something. Dust!
Dust. Water vapor. Even oxygen and nitrogen. Rayleigh scattering off all these is strongly biased along the optical axis. Look almost along the beam of a laser pointer and the scatter will be much more evident than seeing it from the side.
It's a little hard to tell of hand just how strongly the scattering is biased along the optical axis due to the fact that the length of laser beam itself that one observes scales as the secant of the angle. However, to the extent that the scattering is strongly biased along the optical axis it is probably due mostly to aerosol Mie scattering. (The sodium dissolved in such aerosols may also be a factor.)
At the location of this observatory, however, I'd expect Rayleigh scattering off of small particles to dominate Mie scattering off of larger ones. But we don't know what the actual conditions were at the time the image was made. And, of course, the image was made very close to the ground, where we're much more likely to find large particles (like John's dust).

Either way, though, a laser beam is usually quite evident when we're near its axis even where the air is very clean.

Top