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.
These are entirely two very different wavelength bands. The sun's energy incident upon the earth IS NOT absorbed 95%! Here is a good link to confirm what both of these bands of energy do in the atmosphere. Incendent Energy from the sun and it re-radiation
--Boot Hill
I make zero claim of any significant understanding of the actual physics of it. So perhaps I should simply shut up...
Hey, whoa, whoa, that's not MY link. Wrong guy.
No, don't shut up. You're one of a FEW posters at FR that actually reads posts and responds intelligently!
Dude, the Earth is not flat. I don't know how else to tell you something that is so publicly well established. I've quoted the Atlas and I'm not lying. Don't know what else to say about a hard fact.
Sorry, absorbed and scattered are not the same thing.
Absorbed means just that. Whatever absorbed the sun's energy would then radiate long wave heat. A substantially different wavelength than the initial wavelength being absorbed.
Scattered means just that, bounced around like mirrors until it finally reaches the earth. In this case the energy was not absorbed in the atmosphere and no long wave heat was radiated by the atmosphere (due to this mechanism). The energy retains its original wavelength because it is the same energy from the sun just taking a longer path down.
BTW, this doesn't even include the percentage of incident radiation REFLECTED off the atmosphere. So, the total reflection and absorption of light must be VERY close to 100%. This makes sense considering the fact that a space suit in LEO gets INCREDIBLY hot when in the sun. I'll look that number up tomorrow, but for now, it's bedtime for bonzo.
You're just reading what you want to read into it. The quote clearly states that ONLY 5% REACHES THE SURFACE of the Earth. That is what is relevant here; that is, how much light is deflected OR absorbed. It doesn't matter how, just that it is. Lasers will encounter the same problem.
Ditto, engineer, hardware electronics and optics, 35 years.
The fact is there are some optical phenomena (like the F-P Interferometer, or Young's Double Slit experiment) that just can't be explained very well by using photons. And conversely, (as Einstein demonstrated with photocells in 1905) there are some effects that just can't be explained well by waves. That's why they call it the wave-particle duality.
--Boot Hill
No it doesn't.
BUMP
Very informative post. As usual, the media is a few years behind the curve.
Whoever noted that laser-protective eyewear would become SOP for take-off and landing is precient.
Here is what I was looking for:
To: AdamSelene235
This could be for everyone:
This would not be a conventional laser. This would have to be a high-powered laser as it would be fired from a great distance, through lots of atmosphere and glass. The USSR used this idea as a way of blinding pilots in wartime and developed powerful lasers for this purpose. It doesn't burn skin, but it's enough to damage your eyes. The crewmember is being treated for an eye injury.
Your source (#361) is incorrect. It is so incorrect that a simple reading of what you posted will reveal that fact. Your source wants us to believe that of the solar energy that reaches the earth 44% of it arrives through clouds and scattering, yet only 5% reaches us via direct radiation! In other words, your source claims that we get 9 times as much energy from the clouds and scattering than we do from direct sunlight! Does that make intuitive sense to you?
Please review my link in post #362.
--Boot Hill
LOL, okay, so we're taking the nihilist view now. I see this is pointless.
First they stuned my beeber, now they lazed it! The horror!Yep!
tiajunna Mexico customes beeber like device stuned
Why would you think that atmospheric absorption would be greater for coherent light?
So, you're claim is that one of the most respected authorities on the subject is wrong because...you say so. Not very convincing.
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.
