This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The article mentions that the dark-adapted eye is most sensitive to green light. As of August 12 2007, this is a revert from a previous edit which said the dark-adapted eye is most sensitive to "blue-green" light.
Here is some research to support the use of "green" over "blue-green".
First, the dark-adapted eye (scotopic vision) is most sensitive to 507 nm light. Compare with the light-adapted eye (photopic vision) which is most sensitive to 555 nm light. References: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/humanvisionintro.html (second paragraph after graphic of "Microscopic Anatomy of the Retina") and the "Luminous Efficiency" chart at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/bright.html.
So what color is 507 nm? Obviously, color is perceptual, but here are some references giving ranges.
- The Wikipedia article "Color" has a chart showing blue at about 450-490 nm, and green at about 490-560 nm.
- In the same article, a CIE 1931 color space chromaticity diagram shows wavelength around the outer edge of the curve. Cyan (evenly mixed blue-green) is at about 492 nm, while 507 nm is clearly in the green section.
- The Wikipedia article "Visible spectrum" has a chart showing blue at 450-495 nm, and green at 495-570.
For these three references, 507 is within the green region and is not "on the border" at around 490 or 495.
A few years ago, I did a website which included laser wavelength tables. I used an online wavelength-to-RGB conversion calculator so that the on-screen colors for visible lasers would match (within obvious limits of equipment, calibration, etc.) the laser wavelengths. The resulting table is at http://www.lexellaser.com/techinfo_wavelengths.htm. Note that Argon at 501.7 nm is clearly green, not blue-green such as argon 496 or 488. This would mean that 507 nm would be even closer to a "pure" green.
(Unfortunately, I cannot now find the online wavelength-to-RGB calculator that I used at the time. I did find related sources, which include http://www.philiplaven.com/p19.html and http://www.midnightkite.com/color.html. Note at the latter the spectrums which use a wavelength-to-RGB conversion algorithm. On this spectrum, 507 is green -- I would not characterize it as "blue-green".)
For these reasons, I feel it is most correct to simply call 507 nm light "green". While it is towards the blue end of the "green zone" of the spectrum, it definitely is NOT an even mix of blue and green (e.g., cyan). Based on the sources above and especially the wavelength-to-RGB conversion, I feel most people seeing 507 nm light would call it "green". More specifically, if asked to compare 507 nm light with a pure blue (around 470), a blue-green (around 490-495), and a pure green (around 530), I feel most people would say that 507 nm would be closest to green, not to blue-green.
Pmurph5 03:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Underneath "Accidental vs. deliberate exposure", there is a sentence which says "(To demonstrate this, aim a laser pointer at a retroreflective street sign a block or two away.)". It may be a good idea to revise this as it may serve to encourage others to point laser pointers (most likely deliberately) out in the public, in addition to surprising others who happen to be witness to such a demonstration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saphius ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This article previously had a photo of a laser guide star. Someone removed it, but I am unclear as to the reason. (The reason cited was that the photo appears in Wikimedia Commons, but I don't think this is true. The removed photo is NOT in Wikimedia Commons.)
Is it possible to use another photo of a laser guide star? There is one in Wikimedia Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Keck_laser_at_night.png. I don't want to add this willy-nilly without understanding 1) if this is OK and 2) the best way to do this.
Any help from more experienced Wikipedians is appreciated. If you could just put the cited photo in, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmurph5 ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This article needs some cleanup because:
Furthermore I question some of the statements about the effects of laser pointers from several 100 m distance, for example in the "Example calculations" section, which are provided without a verifiable source. No doubt it is unpleasant to stare into a 50 μW/cm2 beam (laser pointer at 350 ft), but there is no way a hand-held laser pointer would lead to sufficient exposure time to be an issue, even if aimed deliberately. As anyone who has attended a laser-pointer-supported slide show presentation can attest, it is nearly impossible to steadily hit a target the size of a pupil even from 3 m distance, let alone 100 m. I just tried to shine a 1 mW low-divergence green laser pointer from 10 m into my own eye (mirror at 5 m) and it is pretty hard to hit my eye. I estimate that my pointing accuracy is about 5 mrad (+/-2.5 mrad), which would mean exposure during 1/100 of the time assuming 1 mrad divergence. Furthermore, my shaking hands cause the beam to move at 50 mrad/s, which means that the exposure time per flash is 1/50 seconds, and the energy per flash assuming a 0.5 cm2 pupil is 25 uJ/s * 1/50 s = 0.5 uJ. For a moving plane, the exposure is even smaller (10 cm spot size at 100 km/h = 1/300 s exposure). It is not clear whether these considerations are taken into account in the discussion, or that it is always assumed that the laser pointer is mounted on a telescope tripod. Han-Kwang ( t) 06:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
While reading this article, I felt that a lot of the diction (wording) was a lot less formal or encyclopedic then most of Wikipedia's articles. The real standout was this: "Note that while the distances given are exact ("52 feet", "262 feet"), the laser's brightness is in fact falling off slowly. It is not as if at 51 feet the laser is an eye hazard and at 53 feet it is eye safe," but I don't think that's the instance.
I didn't see any first person, though, or any other obvious problems, and I'm not exactly sure how to word this otherwise. Is this against the style guide, and if so, how should it be worded? Dylan ( talk) 22:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know anything about lasers and the article really just does not give me a sense for how grave an issue this is, except for saying "if this," or "if that," a plane might become involved in a serious accident. I mean I really don't understand what kind of lasers the article is discussing. What is "a legal 5 mW laser pointer"? Is it like the laser pointers you can buy at Office Max for $25USD? Obviously I could take the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_pointer and wade through all of that too, but couldn't "Lasers and aviation safety" provide some succinct explanation that would give the laser-ignorant like me some sense for the gravity of this problem? Arcanicus ( talk) 17:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a highly detailed article for what amounts to "Pointing bright lights at airplanes could theoretically cause a crash." Did this come from a government manual? It's ridiculous. How about pointing lasers and bright lights at cars? Isn't that 1000 times more likely to catch a driver in the eye and 1000 times more likely cause a crash if it does? This smacks of a moral panic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.52.13.130 ( talk) 18:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
http://mashable.com/2013/07/01/egypt-protestors-laser-pointers/ Pilots deal with the sun, moon, and lightning all the time. All more powerful than lasers. 2602:304:B167:A420:4C93:2EC1:24AD:6F5A ( talk) 05:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Lasers and aviation safety. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Lasers and aviation safety. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Lasers and aviation safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://spiedl.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=OPEGAR000044000008084303000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yesWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lasers and aviation safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Citation 33, USA Today "N.J. man charged with aiming laser…" by Alan Levin 2005 points to a broken link. I couldn't find the article in USA Today archives or Internet Archive. Quesoteric ( talk) 17:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The article mentions that the dark-adapted eye is most sensitive to green light. As of August 12 2007, this is a revert from a previous edit which said the dark-adapted eye is most sensitive to "blue-green" light.
Here is some research to support the use of "green" over "blue-green".
First, the dark-adapted eye (scotopic vision) is most sensitive to 507 nm light. Compare with the light-adapted eye (photopic vision) which is most sensitive to 555 nm light. References: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/humanvisionintro.html (second paragraph after graphic of "Microscopic Anatomy of the Retina") and the "Luminous Efficiency" chart at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/bright.html.
So what color is 507 nm? Obviously, color is perceptual, but here are some references giving ranges.
- The Wikipedia article "Color" has a chart showing blue at about 450-490 nm, and green at about 490-560 nm.
- In the same article, a CIE 1931 color space chromaticity diagram shows wavelength around the outer edge of the curve. Cyan (evenly mixed blue-green) is at about 492 nm, while 507 nm is clearly in the green section.
- The Wikipedia article "Visible spectrum" has a chart showing blue at 450-495 nm, and green at 495-570.
For these three references, 507 is within the green region and is not "on the border" at around 490 or 495.
A few years ago, I did a website which included laser wavelength tables. I used an online wavelength-to-RGB conversion calculator so that the on-screen colors for visible lasers would match (within obvious limits of equipment, calibration, etc.) the laser wavelengths. The resulting table is at http://www.lexellaser.com/techinfo_wavelengths.htm. Note that Argon at 501.7 nm is clearly green, not blue-green such as argon 496 or 488. This would mean that 507 nm would be even closer to a "pure" green.
(Unfortunately, I cannot now find the online wavelength-to-RGB calculator that I used at the time. I did find related sources, which include http://www.philiplaven.com/p19.html and http://www.midnightkite.com/color.html. Note at the latter the spectrums which use a wavelength-to-RGB conversion algorithm. On this spectrum, 507 is green -- I would not characterize it as "blue-green".)
For these reasons, I feel it is most correct to simply call 507 nm light "green". While it is towards the blue end of the "green zone" of the spectrum, it definitely is NOT an even mix of blue and green (e.g., cyan). Based on the sources above and especially the wavelength-to-RGB conversion, I feel most people seeing 507 nm light would call it "green". More specifically, if asked to compare 507 nm light with a pure blue (around 470), a blue-green (around 490-495), and a pure green (around 530), I feel most people would say that 507 nm would be closest to green, not to blue-green.
Pmurph5 03:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Underneath "Accidental vs. deliberate exposure", there is a sentence which says "(To demonstrate this, aim a laser pointer at a retroreflective street sign a block or two away.)". It may be a good idea to revise this as it may serve to encourage others to point laser pointers (most likely deliberately) out in the public, in addition to surprising others who happen to be witness to such a demonstration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saphius ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This article previously had a photo of a laser guide star. Someone removed it, but I am unclear as to the reason. (The reason cited was that the photo appears in Wikimedia Commons, but I don't think this is true. The removed photo is NOT in Wikimedia Commons.)
Is it possible to use another photo of a laser guide star? There is one in Wikimedia Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Keck_laser_at_night.png. I don't want to add this willy-nilly without understanding 1) if this is OK and 2) the best way to do this.
Any help from more experienced Wikipedians is appreciated. If you could just put the cited photo in, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmurph5 ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This article needs some cleanup because:
Furthermore I question some of the statements about the effects of laser pointers from several 100 m distance, for example in the "Example calculations" section, which are provided without a verifiable source. No doubt it is unpleasant to stare into a 50 μW/cm2 beam (laser pointer at 350 ft), but there is no way a hand-held laser pointer would lead to sufficient exposure time to be an issue, even if aimed deliberately. As anyone who has attended a laser-pointer-supported slide show presentation can attest, it is nearly impossible to steadily hit a target the size of a pupil even from 3 m distance, let alone 100 m. I just tried to shine a 1 mW low-divergence green laser pointer from 10 m into my own eye (mirror at 5 m) and it is pretty hard to hit my eye. I estimate that my pointing accuracy is about 5 mrad (+/-2.5 mrad), which would mean exposure during 1/100 of the time assuming 1 mrad divergence. Furthermore, my shaking hands cause the beam to move at 50 mrad/s, which means that the exposure time per flash is 1/50 seconds, and the energy per flash assuming a 0.5 cm2 pupil is 25 uJ/s * 1/50 s = 0.5 uJ. For a moving plane, the exposure is even smaller (10 cm spot size at 100 km/h = 1/300 s exposure). It is not clear whether these considerations are taken into account in the discussion, or that it is always assumed that the laser pointer is mounted on a telescope tripod. Han-Kwang ( t) 06:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
While reading this article, I felt that a lot of the diction (wording) was a lot less formal or encyclopedic then most of Wikipedia's articles. The real standout was this: "Note that while the distances given are exact ("52 feet", "262 feet"), the laser's brightness is in fact falling off slowly. It is not as if at 51 feet the laser is an eye hazard and at 53 feet it is eye safe," but I don't think that's the instance.
I didn't see any first person, though, or any other obvious problems, and I'm not exactly sure how to word this otherwise. Is this against the style guide, and if so, how should it be worded? Dylan ( talk) 22:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know anything about lasers and the article really just does not give me a sense for how grave an issue this is, except for saying "if this," or "if that," a plane might become involved in a serious accident. I mean I really don't understand what kind of lasers the article is discussing. What is "a legal 5 mW laser pointer"? Is it like the laser pointers you can buy at Office Max for $25USD? Obviously I could take the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_pointer and wade through all of that too, but couldn't "Lasers and aviation safety" provide some succinct explanation that would give the laser-ignorant like me some sense for the gravity of this problem? Arcanicus ( talk) 17:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a highly detailed article for what amounts to "Pointing bright lights at airplanes could theoretically cause a crash." Did this come from a government manual? It's ridiculous. How about pointing lasers and bright lights at cars? Isn't that 1000 times more likely to catch a driver in the eye and 1000 times more likely cause a crash if it does? This smacks of a moral panic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.52.13.130 ( talk) 18:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
http://mashable.com/2013/07/01/egypt-protestors-laser-pointers/ Pilots deal with the sun, moon, and lightning all the time. All more powerful than lasers. 2602:304:B167:A420:4C93:2EC1:24AD:6F5A ( talk) 05:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Lasers and aviation safety. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Lasers and aviation safety. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Lasers and aviation safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://spiedl.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=OPEGAR000044000008084303000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yesWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lasers and aviation safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Citation 33, USA Today "N.J. man charged with aiming laser…" by Alan Levin 2005 points to a broken link. I couldn't find the article in USA Today archives or Internet Archive. Quesoteric ( talk) 17:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)