Lased in the Flight Levels?
12-08-2021, 04:42 PM
#11
Gets Everyday Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,944
Originally Posted by Smokey23
Thanks! I actually put some thought into the proper phraseology for this but couldn't find a definitive answer....so I made up my own word! 
I and three other guys did a personal project for credit in high school. Designed and built our own Laser. Nitrogen, pulsed, ultra violet. Was asked, “we hear the capacitor discharge. How do we know it is really working?”
Put a board in front of the business end. In a few minutes, there was a charred spot on the board. The response was, “Oh, c**p!”
12-09-2021, 06:21 AM
#12
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,275
Originally Posted by Excargodog
Well if it was, it wouldn’t be the first time. And then of course there is the Boeing connection, who seem to be fouling up by the numbers recently:
https://www.boeing.com/features/2016...ery-06-16.page
An excerpt:
Yeah, these are the guys who leave their McDonalds wrappers in the fuel tank of brand new KC-46s.
Or that a nuclear submarine would run into a long ago charted undersea mountain, or a Ticonderoga class cruiser would run aground in Tokyo harbor which we’ve had pretty good charts of since the 1940s and now GPS navigation for as well.
And I never would have guessed that someone would ACCIDENTALLY have transported 6 nukes from Minot to Barkesdale either, in violation of the SALT treaty and just about every standing order regarding nuclear surety either, but all those things happened.
And most of their LASERS really aren’t all that dangerous - they just provide a way of adjusting the adaptive optics of their telescope to offset atmospheric effects. The problem generally comes when they try using them quasi horizontally rather than directly overhead.
https://www.boeing.com/features/2016...ery-06-16.page
An excerpt:
Yeah, these are the guys who leave their McDonalds wrappers in the fuel tank of brand new KC-46s.
Or that a nuclear submarine would run into a long ago charted undersea mountain, or a Ticonderoga class cruiser would run aground in Tokyo harbor which we’ve had pretty good charts of since the 1940s and now GPS navigation for as well.
And I never would have guessed that someone would ACCIDENTALLY have transported 6 nukes from Minot to Barkesdale either, in violation of the SALT treaty and just about every standing order regarding nuclear surety either, but all those things happened.
And most of their LASERS really aren’t all that dangerous - they just provide a way of adjusting the adaptive optics of their telescope to offset atmospheric effects. The problem generally comes when they try using them quasi horizontally rather than directly overhead.
But somebody reporting a green laser on V66 in and of itself is not damning evidence that a military facility is recklessly disregarding flight and public safety
Occam's razor says an amateur astronomy rig... green laser boresighted on a telescope to aim with.
The fact that it happened twice hints that it's intentional, odds of randomly flying through an un-aimed beam in the FL's is rather low to begin with. Twice is getting improbable.
12-09-2021, 08:39 AM
#13
All is fine at .79
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 4,083
I’ve got a $15(?) flashlight/laser combo I bought years ago at Home Depot.
Runs on 3 AAA and the laser easily reaches a mile. Looks like it’s about basketball size “dot” at that distance.
At 6 miles that would be large enough to cover the cockpit.
Like Rick said, mine wouldn’t be strong enough at that distance to be damaging but certainly feasible.
Runs on 3 AAA and the laser easily reaches a mile. Looks like it’s about basketball size “dot” at that distance.
At 6 miles that would be large enough to cover the cockpit.
Like Rick said, mine wouldn’t be strong enough at that distance to be damaging but certainly feasible.
12-09-2021, 09:21 AM
#14
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,275
Originally Posted by TiredSoul
I’ve got a $15(?) flashlight/laser combo I bought years ago at Home Depot.
Runs on 3 AAA and the laser easily reaches a mile. Looks like it’s about basketball size “dot” at that distance.
At 6 miles that would be large enough to cover the cockpit.
Like Rick said, mine wouldn’t be strong enough at that distance to be damaging but certainly feasible.
Runs on 3 AAA and the laser easily reaches a mile. Looks like it’s about basketball size “dot” at that distance.
At 6 miles that would be large enough to cover the cockpit.
Like Rick said, mine wouldn’t be strong enough at that distance to be damaging but certainly feasible.
The beam stays pretty tight out to a certain point (the Rayleigh range). After that point, the beam starts to diverge more significantly, quickly becoming useless for power delivery.
The Rayleigh Range is a function of aperture size, so in order to push out the RR far enough to be a useful long-range weapon you'd need a large aperture. Bubba (or al queda, etc) cannot build such a thing. Since the vast majority of legit laser applications are short range and/or low-power, there are just not a lot of large-aperture lasers in existence, outside of mil, R&D, and academia. Even a very powerful industrial laser would probably turn into a flashlight before it reached long ranges... it's designed to cut things at a range of millimeters, not miles.
This is an example of a long-range laser designed as a weapon against distant airborne targets. Note the aperture size. Also note that it requires a 747 to haul it around...
Obviously a long-range weapon designed to injure human eyes would not need that ^^^ large of an aperture, but probably bigger than what you can readily obtain commercially. How big do you need? Not sure, have to do the math (also varies with wavelength and other factors).
Also lasers which are designed to blind (as opposed to dazzle) humans are illegal under international convention, so you can't even steal one from a military arms depot.
12-09-2021, 10:42 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2015
Position: Yes
Posts: 139
Originally Posted by TransWorld
Just for clarification. Lased is an incorrect work. It should be Lasered. Laser is an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.
It would be like using the word NASed for some who got selected to be an astronaut by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, commonly called NASA.
It would be like using the word NASed for some who got selected to be an astronaut by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, commonly called NASA.
12-09-2021, 11:50 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,091
Originally Posted by TransWorld
Just for clarification. Lased is an incorrect work. It should be Lasered. Laser is an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.
It would be like using the word NASed for some who got selected to be an astronaut by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, commonly called NASA.
It would be like using the word NASed for some who got selected to be an astronaut by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, commonly called NASA.
12-09-2021, 11:52 AM
#17
Gets Everyday Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,944
Originally Posted by bajthejino
Wouldn't lase mean to function as a laser, and then therefore, to be lased to be the subject of a laser (and ultimately a guided munitions)?
12-09-2021, 11:54 AM
#18
Gets Everyday Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,944
Originally Posted by jaxsurf
That may be, but "lasered" just sounds so ****ing stupid, so don't be surprised if people still just say "lased"
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
