Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

LPF Donation via Stripe | LPF Donation - Other Methods

Links below open in new window

ArcticMyst Security by Avery

How to Tell People Your Hobby is Making and Collecting Lasers

IsaacT

IsaacT

0
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
5,947
Points
83
I feel like a lot of us(myself big time) enjoy the awe sometimes expressed by our peers at our creations. I like people saying "You make what?!" It makes me feel affirmed in my hobby and if I am to be completely honest, I swell with pride when people are impressed by the lasers I have owned or made.

Maybe a bit too honest, but some of you may identify with that as well :)
-Isaac
 





Gun

Gun

0
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
891
Points
0
^ I'm the same, not just with lasers but anything. Affirmation from friends or family is always good :)
 
EpicHam

EpicHam

0
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
971
Points
0
A few days back , I was going for a lonely walk by the beach at night . (with my 1W 445 of course)
38939107.jpg

The walk suddenly isn't as lonely any more :beer:
 
Wolfman29

Wolfman29

0
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
3,816
Points
63
I love telling people about my hobby, but I always feel bad that I am bragging or something because I have the coolest hobby.... Not sure what to do about that. I like Bloom's response. Just make sure they don't touch the GreeNe's connections!
 
KapHn8d

KapHn8d

0
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
838
Points
43
When I say I am into lasers as a hobby, the response I get ALMOST all the time is "Why?"

Answer 1: "Because they are just inherently cool."
Answer 2: "I want to photograph them"

This usually stops the questioning because people can relate to photographing "pretty" things and that satisfies curiosity. Once in a while, when someone shows interest beyond that, a conversation spawns... but sadly, more often than not, people are fairly self-centered and if it isn't about them or what they are interested in, it stops after the blanket "photography" answer. Ha!

I am still working out the kinks of being a beginner at photographing and videoing beams and other laser artifacts (diffracted patterns, burning stuff, etc), so I don't actually have any good photos/videos to show people on my phone, but I think that will be the quickest answer.

"Pics or it never happened."

Cheers!
 
EpicHam

EpicHam

0
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
971
Points
0
KapHn8d said:
When I say I am into lasers as a hobby, the response I get ALMOST all the time is "Why?"

Answer 1: "Because they are just inherently cool."
Answer 2: "I want to photograph them"

This usually stops the questioning because people can relate to photographing "pretty" things and that satisfies curiosity. Once in a while, when someone shows interest beyond that, a conversation spawns... but sadly, more often than not, people are fairly self-centered and if it isn't about them or what they are interested in, it stops after the blanket "photography" answer. Ha!

I am still working out the kinks of being a beginner at photographing and videoing beams and other laser artifacts (diffracted patterns, burning stuff, etc), so I don't actually have any good photos/videos to show people on my phone, but I think that will be the quickest answer.

"Pics or it never happened."

Cheers!
Click to expand...

In the darkest nights ,
its when the dimmest of them all illuminate the sky with their might.
Why should only to the gods have a place in the heaven?
Why should the the skyscape be only shaped by those born with power.
Why shouldn't we have our place in heaven.
I want to leave a mark.
I want to proclaim to the world.
I AM HERE!
I want to have a place among the stars.
I want the world to see , what makes one truly great isn't with what they are born with, or what they are given.
We might not be burning with the power of a thousand suns.
We might be only specks of dust in the vastness of space.
BUT WE ARE SPECIAL DUST!
DUST with feelings , with desires , with passion , with love for each and everyone of us.
And its time for the DUST to REACH into the stars with a beam of magnificent light and oscillate coherently into INFINITY!
We've done it!
 
A

AJ Pierson

0
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
73
Points
0
You raise an interesting point, KRNAZNBOY. Mainly I try to explain to folks that lasers are about MUCH more than "burning stuff" and balloon popping. I don't normally go into the science involved (unless they ask), but I do explain that there's some really cool physics behind all laser devices, and that's what makes them so interesting.



norbyx said:
A more interesting tutorial would be..... "how to explain your wife you spent over $5K in lasers...."""

That could help me a lot.... ;)
Click to expand...

The way I see it, you're just trying to support the global economic recovery ( you know...to create a better future for your children :D)

Who could argue with that?

Hey. it's worth a try...:)

oh well, good luck!
 
hakzaw1

hakzaw1

0
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
10,662
Points
113
DrSid said:
I usually show 1mW red first. Everyone laughs .. I say .. this is 1mW .. safe to look into .. but not really pleasant, is it .. I let them try ..
Then I pull out 200mW red .. this is DVD burner diode I say .. 200 times stronger .. in that moment people usually move one step away and cover their eyes ..
Then I pull 1.5W 445nm .. and deal goggles .. and do some burning and setting things on fire. After this, nobody wanted to hold any of my lasers in their own hands .. :-D
Then I show some greens, especially my 400mW o-like .. which has nice beam even in daylight .. do some dismantling to show insides .. I usually talk about how DPSS works (though nobody really understands what I talk about) .. and so on ..
Click to expand...

At Dr Sid- thats not quite correct AFAIK- while 200 times one is 200 the factor for doubling (at least the preceived 'brightness") is four not 2 a 800 is NOT 'twice' as bright as a 400mW that would take 1600mW not really worth mentioning - and I do like how you handle those questions,,

KapHn8d said:
When I say I am into lasers as a hobby, the response I get ALMOST all the time is "Why?"

Answer 1: "Because they are just inherently cool."
Answer 2: "I want to photograph them"

This usually stops the questioning because people can relate to photographing "pretty" things and that satisfies curiosity. Once in a while, when someone shows interest beyond that, a conversation spawns... but sadly, more often than not, people are fairly self-centered and if it isn't about them or what they are interested in, it stops after the blanket "photography" answer. Ha!

I am still working out the kinks of being a beginner at photographing and videoing beams and other laser artifacts (diffracted patterns, burning stuff, etc), so I don't actually have any good photos/videos to show people on my phone, but I think that will be the quickest answer.

"Pics or it never happened."

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Well CLayton-- one thing to know for sure about lasers and digital cameras IS-- its not rare for some pixels to get burned out so you may not want to use your best camera or go back in time and use a film camera--
the expert on this is 'csshih'- & he learned like me the hard way - but his camera was like 1OX more expensive than mine.. There is some info on-line about taking pix of lasers and not harming your camera I will try to find and send you a link.

Len
 
DrSid

DrSid

0
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
1,506
Points
48
hakzaw1 said:
At Dr Sid- thats not quite correct AFAIK- while 200 times one is 200 the factor for doubling (at least the preceived 'brightness") is four not 2 a 800 is NOT 'twice' as bright as a 400mW that would take 1600mW not really worth mentioning - and I do like how you handle those questions,,
Len
Click to expand...

I never said 'brighter' .. I said 'stronger' ..
 
scumbagatheist

scumbagatheist

1
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,125
Points
63
I don't think the Inverse Square Law applies with regard to lasers. Since, they are focused and coherent, their light does not drop off at a rate similar to a normal light source. So, if using the Inverse Square Law, then a doubling of intensity would be an increase of 4 times output. But, as our lasers do not lose intensity at the inverse of the square, this rule should not be followed.

Does that sound right to you?
 
IsaacT

IsaacT

0
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
5,947
Points
83
I believe the visibility doubles with quadruple the output due to the way our eyes perceive light. You will get diminishing returns at higher outputs, so the higher output the lasers, the less you will perceive differences.
 
scumbagatheist

scumbagatheist

1
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,125
Points
63
Ok...I think I've got this. As our beams are coherent, they do not apply. BUT...the beams we see from a safe viewing angle do not come from the beam itself, but from light reflecting of dust in the air and such, it is no longer coherent, but scattered. So, the law does apply to that!

But, a doubling of intensity (illuminance) is just that, a doubling. So, from an equal viewing distance (pointance) from 2 lasers, a 1W and a 2W, the perceived beam (illuminance) would be just twice as bright.
 
Wolfman29

Wolfman29

0
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
3,816
Points
63
No - the inverse square law applies regardless of the light source. Simply put, wannaburn is right: it's just the way we perceive light. It doesn't matter what the coherence is - you're still receiving four times the photons, which means that you perceive double the brightness. That's just how our eyes work. It's a way of allowing the human brain to be able to visualize a large range of light levels without overwhelming the nerves: if we perceived light linearly, then the lowest light we could perceive would be significantly larger than what we can see now and the brightest light we could see before the pain threshold would be significantly lower.
 
DrSid

DrSid

0
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
1,506
Points
48
Lasers also do diverge .. except they can achieve minimal theoretical divergence. For common pointer it's a cone with angle of about 1 mRad. When focused for best divergence, the beam is indeed parallel at aperture, but it soon starts to change into cone (it's hyperboloid actually). So power density again will start to decrease with square of distance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.




Top