cool burning idea...

[Trevor]

I can see this as just another reason for the "Man" to put a ban on
all Lasers...

Jerry

I have to disagree with you here. Yes, this is something that a good 99% of the population should not try at home. But being able to light things on fire is not a trait that is unique to lasers.

Being able to hit police helicopters and planes that are on approach is a trait that is unique to lasers; if you want to dazzle a pilot, you've got to use a laser - and as such lasers are banned or heavily regulated in some places. However, if you just want to light the "fuse" (match) on a "bomb" (dangerous balloon), you don't need a laser. If you want to burn things, use a lighter. You'd need a rash of nationwide acetylene-balloon incidents (including at least one that harmed someone) before it could warrant even stepping up regulations, IMO.

-Trevor

 

[Arayan]

I have to disagree with you here. Yes, this is something that a good 99% of the population should not try at home. But being able to light things on fire is not a trait that is unique to lasers.

Being able to hit police helicopters and planes that are on approach is a trait that is unique to lasers; if you want to dazzle a pilot, you've got to use a laser - and as such lasers are banned or heavily regulated in some places. However, if you just want to light the "fuse" (match) on a "bomb" (dangerous balloon), you don't need a laser. If you want to burn things, use a lighter. You'd need a rash of nationwide acetylene-balloon incidents (including at least one that harmed someone) before it could warrant even stepping up regulations, IMO.

-Trevor

Yes, but you don't know the "level of smartness" of some people who make the laws

 

[Scotty 757]

I agree with twhite828 but at the same time Arayan makes a very good point. The people who make the laws really piss me off sometimes.

 

[photonaholic]

I have to agree with Jerry and Bob even though it was my dumb ass mistake to even bring this up.

I don't feel that this action would have any bearings on laser laws, however if someone did this (let's just say as an example, remember not everyone is prudent) in an enclosed garage, not expecting the immense force of such an explosion they could get very seriously hurt, burn themselves, or burn down the garage.

Now let's just say you are smart enough to take this outside, but you live in a housing complex with 75 other families, where are you going to perform this action without drawing unwanted attention to yourself??

When I made that statement, I failed to even think about the fact that I live in a remote farming area, I have acreage and my own personal firefighting equipment, I also get an annual pyrotechnic display permit for my motor sports facility, so the neighbors have grown quite used to "artificial thunder" emanating from my motor sports park.

This is a two sided coin, and both sides have a valid point.

 

[Trevor]

They pass laws based on single, highly publicised events. The law banning lasers here will be named after the first little white girl who gets hurt by one.

Sickening, but it doesn't make that any less true. Good point. +1

-Trevor

 

[lasersbee]

I have to disagree with you here. Yes, this is something that a good 99% of the population should not try at home. But being able to light things on fire is not a trait that is unique to lasers.

Being able to hit police helicopters and planes that are on approach is a trait that is unique to lasers; if you want to dazzle a pilot, you've got to use a laser - and as such lasers are banned or heavily regulated in some places. However, if you just want to light the "fuse" (match) on a "bomb" (dangerous balloon), you don't need a laser. If you want to burn things, use a lighter. You'd need a rash of nationwide acetylene-balloon incidents (including at least one that harmed someone) before it could warrant even stepping up regulations, IMO.

-Trevor

Hey Trevor...
you missed my point...

A hypothetical possible aftermath....

"....the investigation into the death by fire of that 12 year old was
attributed to the use of a high powered Laser to ignite a mixture of
Acetylene and Oxygen contained in a balloon in the family's cluttered
basement as reported by his in shock friends...."

It is a lot easier NOT to attempt it than run a risk... unless you are
experienced in pyrotechnics... IMO...
It's just common sense and life experience that makes me feel this way...

Hey... you want to try it... I won't stop you.... unless you're in my
neighborhood...


Jerry

 

[Trevor]

Hey... you want to try it... I won't stop you....

Yeah... just not with acetylene. Something orders of magnitude less dangerous. I'd rather not die, and I'd like to keep my eyebrows.

-Trevor

 

[Noctis]

Thrill seekers =P

In practical terms, I can understand that a lighter would make a better burner over a laser. But I think I can safely assume that 99% of all people who HAVE a high powered hand-held laser only use it for entertainment purposes. Besides which, I have a bad habit of burning myself whenever I use a lighter =)

I think my friends would be far more impressed if I lighted that firework from 5 feet away compared to lighting it with a match or lighter. Watching the beam itself from the resulting smoke is always cool too. Watching the beam in the clouds above you? Even cooler.

That said, I think said guests would be far less impressed if their hair got burned off, so there definitely needs to be a limit on how far we explore.