Talk:1681: Laser Products - Revision history

162.158.155.26 at 19:58, 1 March 2018

2018-03-01T19:58:26Z

Xkcdreader52 at 07:03, 9 December 2017

2017-12-09T07:03:08Z

162.158.92.58 at 15:09, 29 March 2017

2017-03-29T15:09:15Z

Jevicci at 22:20, 25 May 2016

2016-05-25T22:20:18Z

Davidy22 at 23:37, 24 May 2016

2016-05-24T23:37:06Z

108.162.221.97 at 21:22, 24 May 2016

2016-05-24T21:22:27Z

.42: laser eye tattoo removal

2016-05-19T07:07:44Z

laser eye tattoo removal

.42: SpaceX will probably have to install this...

2016-05-19T06:43:50Z

SpaceX will probably have to install this...

International Space Station at 05:53, 19 May 2016

2016-05-19T05:53:28Z

108.162.241.123: point out that inkjet is not xerography

2016-05-19T02:31:08Z

point out that inkjet is not xerography

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 :The first part of that question was tested in 2012. http://www.universetoday.com/93987/amateur-astronomers-flash-the-space-station/. The article mentions that the 800 million lumen (dubious) searchlights came in brighter than magnitude 0 but the 1 MW blue laser was "also visible". From the picture it looks to be about magnitude 2 or 3. To match the sun's brightness (for blinding purposes) you'd need to get that up to about -26.5. Making up a 29 magnitude difference means you'd need to make your laser about 400 billion times brighter, or about 400 petawatts. You can probably bring that power draw down significantly by focusing the beam more, but since the Earth's power consumption is only about 2.5 petawatts (per Randall), you're already pretty far outside the realm of possibility. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.220|108.162.237.220]] 13:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
-When I say blind, I mean "blind" in the same sense of "I accidentally flashed my green laser pointer in my eye via my mirror." So that would be just 35mW at 20ft. Couldn't you develop an ultra-focused laser (atmospheric distortion aside) that was able to focus all that energy onto an astronaut's eye from the ground?
+::When I say blind, I mean "blind" in the same sense of "I accidentally flashed my green laser pointer in my eye via my mirror." So that would be just 35mW at 20ft. Couldn't you develop an ultra-focused laser (atmospheric distortion aside) that was able to focus all that energy onto an astronaut's eye from the ground? [[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 05:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
-: {{w|Laser guide star}}s are impressively bright at a quarter of the distance to your orbit.  5 kW {{w|laser broom}}s have been proposed for laser satellite removal.  The main problem with laser astronaut surgery is probably your huge relative velocity; they won't be visible through your windows long enough to be targeted.  You might be more successful powering a {{w|space weapon|laser cannon}} from your solar array and trying to strike Baikonur.  [[User:.42|.42]] ([[User talk:.42|talk]]) 06:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
+::: {{w|Laser guide star}}s are impressively bright at a quarter of the distance to your orbit.  5 kW {{w|laser broom}}s have been proposed for laser satellite removal.  The main problem with laser astronaut surgery is probably your huge relative velocity; they won't be visible through your windows long enough to be targeted.  You might be more successful powering a {{w|space weapon|laser cannon}} from your solar array and trying to strike Baikonur.  [[User:.42|.42]] ([[User talk:.42|talk]]) 06:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 An inkjet printer is very definitely ''not'' xerographic printing, which refers to a dry printing process. A better term would be "raster" rather than "xerographic" although the former still does not imply converting the image to pixels, which appears to be the point the sentence is trying to make. At least "raster" means the image is converted to scan lines...[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.123|108.162.241.123]] 02:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:03, 9 December 2017
Line 41:		Line 41:

	: Based on {{w\|PC LOAD LETTER}}, an error message in some old printers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.58\|162.158.92.58]] 15:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)		: Based on {{w\|PC LOAD LETTER}}, an error message in some old printers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.58\|162.158.92.58]] 15:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	I think Laser Eyes Printer could refer to current technology of 3D printing, which is processes used to create a three-dimensional object in which material is joined or solidified under computer control to create an object, with material being added together (such as liquid molecules or powder grains being fused together). Albeit that it uses laser to print out the 3D representation of the eyes.Boeing-787lover 07:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:09, 29 March 2017
Line 39:		Line 39:

	"PC LOAD HAIR"? What the fuck does ''that'' mean? [[User:Jevicci\|Jevicci]] ([[User talk:Jevicci\|talk]]) 22:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)		"PC LOAD HAIR"? What the fuck does ''that'' mean? [[User:Jevicci\|Jevicci]] ([[User talk:Jevicci\|talk]]) 22:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	: Based on {{w\|PC LOAD LETTER}}, an error message in some old printers. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.58\|162.158.92.58]] 15:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:20, 25 May 2016
Line 36:		Line 36:
	An inkjet printer is very definitely ''not'' xerographic printing, which refers to a dry printing process. A better term would be "raster" rather than "xerographic" although the former still does not imply converting the image to pixels, which appears to be the point the sentence is trying to make. At least "raster" means the image is converted to scan lines...[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.123\|108.162.241.123]] 02:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)		An inkjet printer is very definitely ''not'' xerographic printing, which refers to a dry printing process. A better term would be "raster" rather than "xerographic" although the former still does not imply converting the image to pixels, which appears to be the point the sentence is trying to make. At least "raster" means the image is converted to scan lines...[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.123\|108.162.241.123]] 02:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

		+	I think that it means that you are strapping jets oflasers to your eyeballs and using them to peform surgery.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.97\|108.162.221.97]] 21:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

−	~~I think~~ that ~~it means that you are strapping jets oflasers to your eyeballs and using them to peform surgery.~~[[~~Special~~:~~Contributions/108.162.221.97~~\|~~108.162.221.97~~]] 21:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)	+	"PC LOAD HAIR"? What the fuck does ''that'' mean? [[User:Jevicci\|Jevicci]] ([[User talk:Jevicci\|talk]]) 22:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~-->
 Laser jet surgery might be a reference to [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisAintRocketSurgery rocket surgery]? {{unsigned ip|141.101.80.25}}
@@ Line 37: / Line 35: @@
 An inkjet printer is very definitely ''not'' xerographic printing, which refers to a dry printing process. A better term would be "raster" rather than "xerographic" although the former still does not imply converting the image to pixels, which appears to be the point the sentence is trying to make. At least "raster" means the image is converted to scan lines...[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.123|108.162.241.123]] 02:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:07, 19 May 2016
Line 11:		Line 11:

	:Laser eye printer sounds like the type of thing edgy people want. Imagine printing a pentagram on your pupil or sclera {{unsigned ip\|162.158.26.140}}		:Laser eye printer sounds like the type of thing edgy people want. Imagine printing a pentagram on your pupil or sclera {{unsigned ip\|162.158.26.140}}
		+
		+	:: Some people have their {{w\|Scleral tattooing\|sclera}} or ''{{w\|Corneal tattooing\|cornea}}'' tattooed. The right kind of laser could burn an attractive pattern onto the surface less invasively. Wrong kinds of lasers will perform retinal tattooing. [[User:.42\|.42]] ([[User talk:.42\|talk]]) 07:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

	The first laser was fired 56 years ago, on 16 May 1960 by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Harold_Maiman Theodore Harold Maiman]. Maybe this comic is a reference? [[Special:Contributions/188.114.109.103\|188.114.109.103]] 15:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)		The first laser was fired 56 years ago, on 16 May 1960 by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Harold_Maiman Theodore Harold Maiman]. Maybe this comic is a reference? [[Special:Contributions/188.114.109.103\|188.114.109.103]] 15:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:53, 19 May 2016
Line 28:		Line 28:

	:The first part of that question was tested in 2012. http://www.universetoday.com/93987/amateur-astronomers-flash-the-space-station/. The article mentions that the 800 million lumen (dubious) searchlights came in brighter than magnitude 0 but the 1 MW blue laser was "also visible". From the picture it looks to be about magnitude 2 or 3. To match the sun's brightness (for blinding purposes) you'd need to get that up to about -26.5. Making up a 29 magnitude difference means you'd need to make your laser about 400 billion times brighter, or about 400 petawatts. You can probably bring that power draw down significantly by focusing the beam more, but since the Earth's power consumption is only about 2.5 petawatts (per Randall), you're already pretty far outside the realm of possibility. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.220\|108.162.237.220]] 13:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)		:The first part of that question was tested in 2012. http://www.universetoday.com/93987/amateur-astronomers-flash-the-space-station/. The article mentions that the 800 million lumen (dubious) searchlights came in brighter than magnitude 0 but the 1 MW blue laser was "also visible". From the picture it looks to be about magnitude 2 or 3. To match the sun's brightness (for blinding purposes) you'd need to get that up to about -26.5. Making up a 29 magnitude difference means you'd need to make your laser about 400 billion times brighter, or about 400 petawatts. You can probably bring that power draw down significantly by focusing the beam more, but since the Earth's power consumption is only about 2.5 petawatts (per Randall), you're already pretty far outside the realm of possibility. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.220\|108.162.237.220]] 13:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
		+	When I say blind, I mean "blind" in the same sense of "I accidentally flashed my green laser pointer in my eye via my mirror." So that would be just 35mW at 20ft. Couldn't you develop an ultra-focused laser (atmospheric distortion aside) that was able to focus all that energy onto an astronaut's eye from the ground?
		+	[[User:International Space Station\|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station\|talk]]) 05:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

	An inkjet printer is very definitely ''not'' xerographic printing, which refers to a dry printing process. A better term would be "raster" rather than "xerographic" although the former still does not imply converting the image to pixels, which appears to be the point the sentence is trying to make. At least "raster" means the image is converted to scan lines...[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.123\|108.162.241.123]] 02:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)		An inkjet printer is very definitely ''not'' xerographic printing, which refers to a dry printing process. A better term would be "raster" rather than "xerographic" although the former still does not imply converting the image to pixels, which appears to be the point the sentence is trying to make. At least "raster" means the image is converted to scan lines...[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.123\|108.162.241.123]] 02:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:31, 19 May 2016
Line 28:		Line 28:

	:The first part of that question was tested in 2012. http://www.universetoday.com/93987/amateur-astronomers-flash-the-space-station/. The article mentions that the 800 million lumen (dubious) searchlights came in brighter than magnitude 0 but the 1 MW blue laser was "also visible". From the picture it looks to be about magnitude 2 or 3. To match the sun's brightness (for blinding purposes) you'd need to get that up to about -26.5. Making up a 29 magnitude difference means you'd need to make your laser about 400 billion times brighter, or about 400 petawatts. You can probably bring that power draw down significantly by focusing the beam more, but since the Earth's power consumption is only about 2.5 petawatts (per Randall), you're already pretty far outside the realm of possibility. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.220\|108.162.237.220]] 13:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)		:The first part of that question was tested in 2012. http://www.universetoday.com/93987/amateur-astronomers-flash-the-space-station/. The article mentions that the 800 million lumen (dubious) searchlights came in brighter than magnitude 0 but the 1 MW blue laser was "also visible". From the picture it looks to be about magnitude 2 or 3. To match the sun's brightness (for blinding purposes) you'd need to get that up to about -26.5. Making up a 29 magnitude difference means you'd need to make your laser about 400 billion times brighter, or about 400 petawatts. You can probably bring that power draw down significantly by focusing the beam more, but since the Earth's power consumption is only about 2.5 petawatts (per Randall), you're already pretty far outside the realm of possibility. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.220\|108.162.237.220]] 13:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	An inkjet printer is very definitely ''not'' xerographic printing, which refers to a dry printing process. A better term would be "raster" rather than "xerographic" although the former still does not imply converting the image to pixels, which appears to be the point the sentence is trying to make. At least "raster" means the image is converted to scan lines...[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.123\|108.162.241.123]] 02:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)