That is no point, CERT would have been involved. Only if fire safety is directly concerned, we get in contact with you. I don't know whoever let you take it down and why.
-
Class 3 and 4 and their subclasses are all but useless. The actual result depends way too much on the specific circumstances. Obviously my class 4 laser projector neither sets shit on fire nor is harmful when scattered off a dull surface.
And it's also below eye damage levels when scanned at appropriate speeds and distances (though you wouldn't want to *deliberately* aim it at people, i.e. audience scanning, without more thorough analysis as the safety margins are larger for that)
-
-
Just to reiterate: In our research we're scanning the laser, too, yet despite that we put a lot of emphasis on keeping the power safe for a static spot. The reason why? Nobody really knows if damages scales linearly with exposure time. It's ongoing research.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
One of my colleagues spent months on the question if we could safely rise the power of our scanning spot from 1.6mW (one point six) to 2.0mW (two point zero) (milliwatts) on retina. Maybe I'm oversensitive here, because I've seen firsthand what damage even "weak" lasers can do.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I reiterate: Nobody knows for sure if scanning actually makes it eye safe. So far this is just an assumption that's based on a purely thermal model, assumes the eye to consist largely of water and the retina being a beer-lambertian absorber.
-
It's not just scanning. Beams expand wider than the human pupil at sufficient distance (and are deliberately expanded for audience scanning setups) in order to also reduce peak power.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.