Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox: Commercial Pilots 'attacked' with laser
Fox News | Greta Van Susteren

Posted on 09/28/2004 8:12:49 PM PDT by ableChair

Greta Van Susteren reported that a Delta pilot enroute to Salt Lake City was lazed in the cockpit this last Wednesday. Only country I know that has that hardware (for lazing bomber pilots) was the Soviet Union. Pilot reportedly required medical treatment and this was not a minor injury (weak laser) wound. More will come out to tomorrow as this story hits the print press.


TOPICS: Breaking News; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: airlinesecurity; dal; kapitanman; laser
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 601-610 next last
To: Kirkwood
If it's visible.

It all comes down to energy exposure levels.

low power for extended time has the same affect as high power levels for short periods of time. Obviously the chances of staying targeted on a specific location very long is low. Therefore low power lasers aren't normally very harmful. A 50 watt laser is 10,000 times more powerful than the typical 5 mW laser. So the time required to do damage is reduced by a factor of 10,000. That's pretty substantial. Instead of a couple of seconds to do damage it's down to a couple of hundred microseconds. In human time that's instantaneous.

It will be very interesting to find out what altitude this plane was flying at the time of the event.
201 posted on 09/28/2004 9:51:33 PM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
Got you by 20, but some catching up is needed.
202 posted on 09/28/2004 9:51:47 PM PDT by Delta 21 (MKC USCG -ret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: ableChair
You're still a moron. It's called "conservation of energy".

You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between power and energy.

A jelly donut and a pipe bomb may have equivalent energy content, but one has a much higher peak power.

Nevertheless, retina damage can be acheived at great distances with either pulsed or cw laser light.

Pulsed would certainly be easier and cheaper.

Hell, Reagan should have hired you for SDI then all his problems would have been solved, being the "hobbyist expert" you are and all.

I've worked on anti-missle laser systems just like hundreds of other laser jocks.

203 posted on 09/28/2004 9:51:57 PM PDT by AdamSelene235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo

How do you know Stobe Talbott tipped off the Russians?


204 posted on 09/28/2004 9:52:01 PM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I don't buy that either. There is too much energy dissipated in the atmosphere. Look at all the difficulties they encountered with SDI. They were working with astronomical energy levels. It wasn't because it was a metal target so much as it was that they were LOSING TONS of energy in the atmosphere. At point blank range, sure, but not 5 miles out. The atmosphere is only about 60 miles deep. ICBMs were to be targeted at the very edge of that. Just that little bit of atmosphere, along with diffraction over distance, was enough to weaken their lasers by HUGE amounts.


205 posted on 09/28/2004 9:54:09 PM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: ableChair
You're trying to melt a lot of metal in a very short time.

Energy = time x power.

Short times take enormous power levels to develop enough energy to melt big things in that time.
206 posted on 09/28/2004 9:55:05 PM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
Navy turns down appeal for award

Snippet:
A partial search of the Russian ship that later docked at Tacoma did not lead to the discovery of a laser. However, Clinton administration officials had alerted the Russian government that the ship was to be searched, in what U.S. officials later would say was part of an effort to cover up the incident to avoid upsetting U.S.-Russian relations.

207 posted on 09/28/2004 9:55:09 PM PDT by flutters (God Bless The USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Delta 21
Got you by 20, but some catching up is needed.

Yeah, I saw that, very nice matching of pic to quote!

208 posted on 09/28/2004 9:55:23 PM PDT by JohnnyZ ("The common man doesn't look at me as some rich witch." --Teresa Heinz Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: ableChair
That's why I don't think what you're saying passes the sniff test. If it were as easy as you say, SDI wouldn't have been the massive technological undertaking it was realized to be. They were talking about power levels in excess of 10 exp 16 watts!

A stick of dynamite contains about a megajoule. It is also sufficient to stop an ICBM. So a 1 Megawatt laser with a 1 second dwell time would be sufficient. You dont need 10^16.

As for pulses, the question is one of total aggregate energy

Only in the regime of thermal damage. A high peak intesity pulse will produce dieletric breakdown. Electrons move in response to E-fields, jolt them hard enough and retinal damage can occur at modest energies (but high peak powers).

209 posted on 09/28/2004 9:57:27 PM PDT by AdamSelene235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: ableChair
Okay, smart-a$%. How much power does it take to burn metal?

Most metals spark around 10 Megawatts per cm^2. Melting and sparking are two different things. (one is electrical the other is thermal)

210 posted on 09/28/2004 9:59:28 PM PDT by AdamSelene235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
As for energy and power, I hope my physics degree meant something. Yes, I certainly do know the difference. It's you that seems to be confused. You seem to think you can get something for nothing, that lasers are 100% efficient and that they never lose energy. That's nonsense. In fact, it's precisely the difference in energy and power that makes my point. No 'hobbyist' is ever going to be able to easily generate the TOTAL amount of energy needed to penetrate miles of atmosphere. The Joules needed would be enormous.

I've worked on anti-missle laser systems just like hundreds of other laser jocks.

Well, then why was SDI so difficult? According to your arguments it should have been a walk in the park. How much energy would it take to burn metal? Surely we've got lasers that can do that, don't we? The problem is atmospheric and diffraction inefficiency. If you're such a genius how is it that you don't know about those things?
211 posted on 09/28/2004 9:59:53 PM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
A stick of dynamite contains about a megajoule. It is also sufficient to stop an ICBM. So a 1 Megawatt laser with a 1 second dwell time would be sufficient. You dont need 10^16.

Are you brain-dead? Are you reading my posts? We're not talking about point-blank distances, moron.
212 posted on 09/28/2004 10:01:04 PM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: ableChair
Oh really? Then why does every scientist that worked on it disagree with you? Why was SDI so difficult to achieve, then? If it's that easy then why weren't you working for them? Now, of course, at point blank range you certainly don't need 10 exp 16 watts which just makes my point. Where is all that energy going? It's dissipating enroute, dumb-a$%.

Driving an X-ray laser, much less an array of X-ray lasers with a nuke, is, well, hard.

Teller's brilliant pebbles idea was better, but one of the best interception techniques is what Moscow is rumored to have, nuke tipped interceptors.

The chemical laser needed to make SDI a reality have only recently matured.

213 posted on 09/28/2004 10:02:55 PM PDT by AdamSelene235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: DB
Thank you for stating what I already knew. Are you reading my posts? I'm talking about dissipation of energy in the atmosphere. That's the key question here. Usually, power is expressed as power = energy/time, but your algebra is correct.
214 posted on 09/28/2004 10:03:42 PM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: ableChair

EASY NOW TEX....


215 posted on 09/28/2004 10:03:45 PM PDT by Walkingfeather (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: ableChair
Are you brain-dead? Are you reading my posts? We're not talking about point-blank distances, moron.

If the point of absorption is the missle tip, then, uh, yes we are.

216 posted on 09/28/2004 10:04:36 PM PDT by AdamSelene235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: ableChair

There's more.

A large percentage of that energy is reflected off the target. Only some of it is absorbed. That fractional part that is absorbed has to melt the metal in a short period of time. Therefore extremely high energy levels are required in order to reliably succeed.

And back to energy.

A 100 watt light on for 24 hours is 8.64 million watt seconds (joules) of energy. Or - 8,640,000 watts for one second. If you laser only works for 10 milliseconds, the peak power level would be 864 million watts. Or the same thing used by a 100 watt light bulb for a day...

High energy lasers don't last long. They generate huge bursts of energy for short periods of time. Therefore in order to do damage to the target in that short period of time the power levels have to be absolutely enormous.


217 posted on 09/28/2004 10:06:02 PM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235

You're so invested in this hobby that you can't admit you're wrong. Okay, if it's so easy to do TODAY, then why doesn't GWB run down to radio shack and buy all the lasers he needs, throw 'em into orbit on a Delta rocket and scrap the missile to missile interceptor he's building now? Common sense would tell you that the atmosphere plays a HUGE role in dissipating laser energy. It's not hard to see or understand.


218 posted on 09/28/2004 10:06:11 PM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: flutters

"Clinton administration officials had alerted the Russian government that the ship was to be searched,"


I wasn't aware of that, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.


219 posted on 09/28/2004 10:09:26 PM PDT by FairOpinion (FIGHT TERRORISM! VOTE BUSH/CHENEY 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

finally! kept waiting for that guy to show up.


220 posted on 09/28/2004 10:10:13 PM PDT by Semaphore Heathcliffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 601-610 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson