Now this puppy will do it all:

300 mW green laser pen

This is enough juice to start a fire, enough to drive off a grizzly bear (if you're lucky, or at least blind him completely), enough to signal for help like a flare, enough to communicate line of sight to the horizon.

My buddy got a 200 mW unit, and it will punch holes through electrical tape almost instantly, pop balloons, burn a hole in your thumbnail, and ignite dry leaves and twigs. He used it to drvie off a raccoon that was after his goslings. One shot in the eyes, and the coon couldn't get out of the backyard fast enough, and ended up running into a garbage can full on.

If I had the scratch, one of the 300 mW spyders would be going in my edc and/or my bob. It could be a darned nice self defense item to boot.

WOW, pricy !

The problem with these very powerful lasers is that they are potentially quite dangerous. They are also illegal to use for signaling aircraft. Illegal as in a Federal felony with penalties of potentially 5 years in jail and/or a $150,000 fine! You may have read about various prosecutions in the news of late. While they might make an exception in an actual survival situation, I wouldn't want to bet on it. And, soem pilots are finding it worthwhile to claim eye injury, adding to the potential liability.

Greatland Laser has developed a Green Laser Flare that they have been selling to the military and which will be introduced for civilian use at SHOT Show next week. In my tests we exceeded 30 miles range. Because this is a Class IIIa (3R) "Laser Signaling Device intended for use as an emergency distress signal," it will be legal for use as a distress signal and there is currently a bill before Congress (already passed the House) that will explicitly enable such use so there is no question.

So, the concept is fine, but I'm going to stick with legal lasers for survival use. Note that the green lasers are fine for terrestrial use, but for marine use probably want to stick with red as the green doesn't work very well with the night vision goggles commonly used by the Coast Guard for night SAR.

WTF is a "serious laser professional"?

The price is high now, but I'm sure it will drop down to where every a$$hole can afford one. As you indicated about your friend, the first thing the trash people go for is the eyes. I've heard that people will get in line with planes taking off and try to get the pilots. Now, it appears they may be able to succeed!

The first order of business in people who use lasers as a toy (most) is to burn out retinas. GOOD JOB!

Sue

As an addict of gear and gadgets I'd love to have one of these puppies. A grand is a little steep.
Anyone thinking of buying please remember; This device probably blinded for life the critter who ran into an object after being hit in the eye. It will do the same to humans, perhaps even quite a distance away. Take the same care you would with a gun.

Yup, I have to agree with the caution warnings here. The coon incident was a last straw deterrent after other means to capture/drive off the critter had failed, and the bird investment was taking quite a hit. Also, both my friend and I have been temporarily blinded by spurious reflection flashes across our eyes. At the 200 mW power level, it takes nothing more than a quick strobe of reflected beam to KO your eyeballs for a good 10 to 20 minutes. I doubt that the coon suffered permanent injury, as he was moving and we only swept his face with the beam, so we're talking milliseconds of exposure, similar to what we experienced.

Believe me, it is more than enough to overwhelm you, especially at night when your pupils are well dilated. Like the website says repeatedly, "THIS IS NOT A TOY!!!!!".

Something else to note; even at 200 mW, the beaconing effect of the beam in the atmosphere is not very impressive. We concluded that it'd take several watts to make a bright enough column in nominal atmospheric conditions that searchers would be able to see where you were from miles away. That's not practical in a portable platform. I think even 25 mW is too much to direct at the eyes of a searcher, but it is a tradeoff.

One thing we did discover was that if you diverge the beam of a 200 mW green laser, the resulting spot you create is much more intense than even an U2 is capable of (orders of magnitude brighter, in fact), and diverging the beam enough would reduce the hazards proportionately.

20 lumens of cohesive light of a single wavelenght in a 10 foot diameter spot is intensely bright.

A laserslinger? *whistling the opening bars to The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly theme*

I want to take one of these things apart. How is it dealing with the thermal diispation? How long before the focusing system dies under continous output?

"The coon incident was a last straw deterrent after other means to capture/drive off the critter had failed"

The real problem is that that the raccoon is smarter than your friend. Anyone who has birds in a place with predators that doesn't have it predator-proofed is going to take some heavy hits from every raccoon, opossum, fox and rat that's passing. (Let me guess: he used chicken wire, right?)

Maybe your friend should sell his big-bucks laser and use the funds to invest in some electrified netting from the local farm store (they probably don't carry it, but can order it). IOW, maybe he should try something EFFECTIVE. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Sue

Yow! Killing the racoon outright would have been far, far more humane than blinding it! And the survival uses suggested are marginal at best, being more easily accomplished with other tools such as a 99 cent Bic lighter, with nowhere near the danger.

Reading this kind of post makes me a supporter of an all-out laser ban to keep them out of the hands of the irresponsible (which is likely the main target demographic for this type of laser)...

Yup, if there were more predatory problems, I am sure he would've turned to other more reliable means to predator proof his bird run. The coon was the first and only critter to have overcome the other obstacles (chicken wire was not one of them), and since he left, there've been no further intrusions.

I'll reiterate, the coon most likely did not suffer permanent damage, just had a miserable night holed up in some nearby tree waiting for his eyeballs to recover. He didn't get a long enough blast to suffer permanent damage in our opinion.

In any case, that wasn't what he got the laser for, it just happened to be handy at the time and got the job done. He's also into communications, and the pointer gets used for diagnosing fiber-optic problems, and he also does some amateur astronomy stuff that he uses it for. But being the gizmo geeks we are, we had to see what else it was capable of, within reason.

Just shooting the critter was problematic, and not very practical. Coons is coons, and they will get into things from time to time, and like I say, he learnt his lesson without undo suffering. Having taken the same hit as he did, it's highly doubtful he suffered any worse than us. After all, the government uses the same thing for driving birds and other critters from airports and such.

wow... I don't even want to think about 90% of the idiot kids around here with one of these things. These are just not toys, and I have to agree that there are far more effective and cheap solutions without as much risk to bystanders (and rescuers!).

Blinding an animal is akin to torturing it - I'm no PETA guy, but damn, if that poor coon was actually blinded, and it's possible he was, he'll be torn apart alive, dehydrate or starve to death.

I think at least the major airliners have some shielding on their windows now for criminal conduct with lasers. Wait until kids start using these on a freeway overpass.... Some things just shouldn't be available. In fact, a terrorist cell could use these to cause instant panic and gridlock in major cities with regard to transportation and they would be almost impossible to catch, allowing them to do it all over the place, blinding drivers and bringing commerce to a stand still. Why hijack a gas truck or one with dangerous chemicals when you can simply blind the driver at 70MPH?

Ugh... they needs these things OFF the market.

No... they need to crucify anybody caught using them for such purposes... literally. And yes, I'll volunteer to drive the nails.

Troy

Yeah, a little bit of a knee jerk reaction... I don't want anyone confiscating my guns or taking them off the market. I suppose these lasers could be used in that capacity as could many other items that aren't regulated. Just chaps my hide thinking about it. Catching them is going to be the tough part, though. I'll be right next to you with my hammer. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm learning. Being a collector of Acronyms I was about to ask.
But..... IOW It came to me in a flash... Thanks for the new item.

I own a 5mW green laser for astronomy. It is very powerful. The beam is a thin visible line for 9000' - 2 miles. As for using it for in an emergency I would rather use my photon freedom on SOS mode pointed skyward. The nightvision goggles would see that more clearly than the laser.

I've been thinking about this all day at work.

Around here, one of the main hobbies is dropping rocks off overpasses. They can't catch those guys, so how would they catch a terrorist aiming at the drivers of gasoline or chlorine tankers?

Are the people who buy them (esp after China gets the mfg details) going to lock them up when not in use? NOPE! Their brain-dead kids will be on the streets aiming them at drivers, cats, dogs, birds, livestock and anything else that moves. If they insist on making these things available, anyone seeing someone using them for damaging a live creature should be legally able to knock them down, sit on them, and burn out THEIR retinas, on the spot!

It's obvious to see that America's technology has WAAAAAY exceeded it's sense of responsibility.

Oh.... sorry.... I mentioned the R-word. Politically incorrect, I know.

And it doesn't make any difference that they post "This is not a toy" fifteen hundred times on their website. It will be considered a toy and used as one.

You can buy a lot of USEFUL kit for a grand.

Sue

And remember this tidbit of practical information...
Do not look into laser with OTHER eye.
<img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

...but does it have "enough juice to... drive off a grizzly bear (if you're lucky, or at least blind him completely)"?

<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The lasers are a tool. It is the responsibiltiy of informed people to teach their friends and family not to play with tools; just like knives, guns, and even lasers. My laser is kept out of the reach of my kid, just like a firearm would be. When I go out stargazing my friends and I have a safety talk with the kids about the dangers of the laser.

Less regulation more personal accountablity.

100% AAAHgreed... less legislation and more accountability.

Troy

This is AMERICA, guys! Accountibility and responsibility are mostly gone. Thinking is a thing of the past, and certainly hasn't been taught in schools for over 100 yrs (about 119, I think). Attorneys and judges say you don't have to be responsible for anything, yourself, your kids or your pets.

Sue (who picked up a kitten yesterday that had apparently been thrown onto a hot stove)

"Sue (who picked up a kitten yesterday that had apparently been thrown onto a hot stove)"

Good for you. Do you want a metal? What does this have to do with anything?

...

I don't think we can fix the lack of personal accountability by taking more freedoms away. People intent on hurting others will use whatever they can. Rocks, lazers, whatever. Murder is murder if it's with a gun, knife, stick, lazer, whatever. Please don't tell me I can't or shouldn't own one of these things because of what I might do with it. It's insulting.

-Jeff

Maybe choosing to take responsability for another?

I can me harsh at times, but... Wow, dude.

"Maybe choosing to take responsability for another?"

I'm not quite sure that I understand you here. I don't expect anyone else to take responsability for my actions, nor me for theirs.

And I don't intend to make this some sort of battle, I was harsh and I'm sorry. I like kittens too.

Wow... She should get a medal... But I believe your point was that she may be a bleeding heart liberal wanting to restrain your freedoms and using cuddly animal corollaries to help sway you to her side?

Cars have to be registered and the drivers licensed. Gun owners have to have licenses. Explosives require licensing. Hell, even crossbows require a license. I believe the point here is that while this item can be used for peaceful purposes, it is readily accessible to anyone with money, without thought to who might be buying it or for what purpose.

I'll fight to the death your right to own a gun or to argue about anything, but certain things just don't belong in the hands of the untrained, unmonitored and unlicensed. But one thing is for sure, anyone who *really* wants one will get it and use it as they please, just like a gun or car - regardless of government licensing. Licensing does, however, limit the exposure to idiot kids and psychotics to some degree and certainly wouldn't harm a law-abiding adult. The difference here is that it's MIGHTY difficult to track a laser being pointed at a tanker from a passing car or rooftop a mile away. So, limiting supply, manufacture and availability of an item which is a TOY does make some sense.

You're argument is largely correct - it's insulting for me to say you can't own or use one. That doesn't make Susan's indignation over social abuses (including the laser) any less true, now does it? And I don't recall her insulting any single person's comments.

I don't see how the inclusion of that little tid-bit of info was helpful at all to the conversation, but rather seemed like a cry for legitamacy or authority as "someone who cares". But that's my personal opinion and I could be totaly off track with that line of thinking. It was a bit more sarcastic/funny in my head than it reads on the screen.

There's also the comment about when they become inexpensive enought that every idiot with own one, which implies that only responsible people have money and that poor people are largely irresponsible. But that's another debate.
...

Cars do not have to be registered and a person does not need a licence to drive on their own private property. Registration and licencing comes when you want to drive on public streets.

I don't agree with the registration of guns either. There are records of serial numbers, but only if the authorities have the gun in their hands are they able to trace it to the owner. That is not registration.

If I had the cash I'd buy one of those lazers...just because I could. And I'd use it for personal amusement, just like I do with the guns that I own. I do treat them as toys in that reguard, but I also know their capabilities and treat them with all due diligence.

And you have every right to do so. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Obviously registration of weapons is a heated topic. In fact, when I read about this, my first post was rather off-the-cuff and I didn't take the time to really think everything through.

If you mass produce a million toys that have the potential to be used as a deadly weapon that could affect thousands at one go or even just as a physically maiming device (enough to burn and blind), is that moral? Does it serve a purpose to get one other than to say you have one? With a gun, I'd say it's a little bit different. It can be a defensive weapon. I can't see using this laser as such, or at least not easily!

On the other hand if you only produce a couple hundred for serious researchers and make sure you know who owns them, make them expensive and track them as dangerous devices, it only makes it a product that some other nation will make on the cheap and sell as a toy. Likely being smuggled into a country that limits it's use. I don't see any shortage of illegal weapons under the same principles.

So, this whole discussion is mostly pointless other than to serve as a platform for opinions. It's simply much too late to do anything about it. I'm glad that you meant it as sarcasm and do like kittens. I'm a complete smart ass, so I can see myself doing the same. It just didn't quite come off that way. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Oh well mate, no worries. Sorry to get involved, I just felt she had been insulted when she was making a plea that, though largely wishful thinking, was from the heart.

People, people people!!!

One match in the hands of an arsonist can be more deadly and cause more destruction than any handgun ever built. We are now losing the availability of strike anywhere matches because some lobbyist insisted that they were too easy to abuse, and some politician looking for ethereal votes stuffed it into a bill that no one at the time thought would cause anyone much of a problem.

There will always be two sides of the fence on this type issue. One side prefers regulation, the other accountability. Some things we deal with incorporate too much inherent risk, and need to be regulated, like fissile material. Most items that have been a part of our civilation on a personal level don't really require such regulation, except perhaps to generate tax revenues to pay for the costs of operating such items (cars are a good example). Regulation should only ever be applied as a result of inherent function, not as an implication of abuse. If we regulate based on the ability to abuse an item, well, that just doesn't make sense. Accountability is more appropriate for such an act, and it seems to make good case law sense. For instance, I can use Brand X lye to make my buffalo soap, or to open my drains, or to neutralize acid spills, if I am careful. Or I could use the lye to injure or kill someone. If I do the latter, then I should be held accountable, and the law makes that pretty clear. The problem is that not everyone who uses these things gets caught, and also that once the offensive act is perpetrated, there is no taking it back (well, usually that's the case). So well intentioned people think that if all lye were somehow not as available to the general public, then it's subsequent abuse would also diminish (nevermind the fact that lye can easily be extracted from wood ash). So guess what, lye is going to be harder to procure, just like high nitro fertilizer is, just like strike anywhere matches are, just like 4f blackpowder is. The end result; those who would abuse lye to bring harm to others or the environment will find something else to abuse in like manner.

If we keep heading down this path, eventually everything will be regulated, and you will have to have a permit and pay a fee to fill your tank with gasoline, provided your tank has less than a 20 gallon capacity (regulation limit, any more than that could be used to make a certain size bomb or some such nonsense).

While I don't like the prospect of people walking around with a source in their briefcase, just how much regulation will be enough?

The other in question was the kitten. As an abandoned and abused juvenile, it is no way capable of taking responsability for itself.

I think cats are people. Like humans, but better. :P

Accountability should be taught at home, it is not an academic topic. I was always more concerned with how my parents would react to my behavior than anything that could happen at school. That was not the case for everyone, and it should've been.

As for the kitten incident, you get a big BZ for that. I hope you kick butt on whoever did that to the poor kitten, assuming you ever find out who it was.

I guess the question we must ask is how accountability and responsibility became such discountable conditions in our society?

I will agree that without enforcing accountability and responsibility, the only option we are left with is regulation. Personally, I think deterrance is far more desirable than restriction.

Back to the point... Ben, do you know if this thing can fuse nylon? I hate swapping the point on my soldering iron for the hot knife, and a match leaves a ragged fuse on webbing. If this would zip though nylon and poly web, and paracord, it would be on my "someday" list.

Also, any idea how big the point is at, say, a half mile? Might make an interesting illuminator. I know that when the Marines when into Somalia the second time, to get the UN out, they had something like this but bigger and maybe not as powerful, as a long range illuminator.

It should have the ability to fuse nylon, though you'd have to experiment with fuse rate and such. The color spectrum for most nylon is right for it to be susceptible, given how fast it chows a hole in electrical tape.

The collimation is fairly tight I am told, you might get a foot or two spread at half a mile, maybe less. My buddy is experimenting with different lensing settings attached to his to diverge the beam, with some pretty good results. I think he gets an 8' spot at 400 yards that is intensely bright using his current lensing configuration. He also says he can see some nodal patterning once in a while. I have to admit, it is pretty wild to watch him move the spot down the road towards a building. The spot doesn't lose much intensity as it moves away. Cohesive light is a darned cool thing.

Just a reminder, judges and attorneys do not hand out verdicts in most civil and criminal cases. It's 12 of "your" peers.

Critical thinking and moral responsibility are hopefully instilled by the parents, not necessarily the local school district.

...end of political rant....

I've had a laser pointed at me while driving some time ago. As a retired infantryman, I was very upset by this incident. I realised at the time that it was probably a kid having fun in the back seat, but it could have been an aiming devise mounted on a weapon and now this !!!

I reacted by slamming on the brakes and taking evasive action, next time I might slam on the gas and take pre-emptive action ... These "toys" make me very upset :-(

( It was night time, didn't get a license plate number)

By the way, lasers produce "coherent" , not cohesive, light.

"There is nothing so frightening as ignorance in action."

It's largely a pointless debate. You'll have those who believe you can reverse time and regulate away something that already exists (I had that reaction to the laser initially, but I know better)

You have the other camp that thinks nothing should be regulated, taxed, licensed or otherwise freedom limited. Never the twain shall meet. But the former camp will never be successful and the latter camp will always have social issues. So you end up with the pseudo compromise we make with most issues like this. You get the illusion of safety while limiting freedoms for some.

But all you really need to do to see that the latter group is likely the more correct solution is to go to any country that doesn't allow "citizens" to own guns. The law-abiding citizens are outflanked and outgunned by every 2-bit criminal with $500 to spend on a smuggled in gun. Take away private ownership of guns and crime escalates exponentially. Give them back and you get a few troubled kids who likely have had a bad upbringing cause all sorts of grief to a lot of people with their uncle's gun.

So, it all comes back to personaly responsibility, a code of ethics and accountability. You can only teach it at home... schools may help, but it's not really it's place to instill those values in YOUR kids.
It won't ever stop. Enough removal of freedom and unjust taxation and you get revolt. Just ask George Washington and crew.

Oh, and your comment about regulating gas pumping is timely... just the other day a lady lit up a cigarette while pumping gas right next to my brother. Normally a calm individual he totally went off on her and she said "It's my life, and I can smoke where I want." SSDD I guess. Sadly these people don't eliminate themselves from the gene pool fast enough. But we already live in a fearful semi-police state. Welcome to the U.S.ofA., now with Freedom Lite! <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

If you shine a laser through a bottle of Jack Daniel, does it become incoherent light?

Well, with thing, it might become a "poof-flames!" kind of light if you do that.

Hey, please, don't insult cats !!! <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You will note that I said "but better".

Yup, it's becoming a sticky subject either way. <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I do tend to mix adjectives I don't use often.

Hi massacre,
I may be wrong, but since when do you need a licence for a crossbow? You do need a handicapped permit to hunt with one, but if all you're shooting is targets, you don't need a licence... at least in Illinois.

Troy

You are absolutely correct. Sorry about that. My neighbor is handicapped and he needed a special permit to use it hunting and that's what I was thinking when I wrote this. I just lumped them in, but I stand corrected.

Thanks