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



Survival Laser Open Thread

Unown (WILD)

Well-known member
Staff member
Joined
Sep 4, 2020
Messages
895
Points
93
Personally I think threatening to take legal action is a bit silly and premature but I have to take a neutral stand. For now the mod team can only keep things civil during these discussions. Both parties need to provide unquestionable proof of their claims. I can't do anything else at this time.
 



Spirit532

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
5
Points
3
I will chime in. While I do not have the certification results for the spectrophotometer I had access to(strictly controlled lab, couldn't carry USB sticks in/out, which is why they're also photos), I did bring multiple known-good goggles from reputable manufacturers, and have acquired spectra for them at the same time(within 30s) to eliminate the possibility of the device being faulty or reading incorrectly.
Attached are those additional spectra.

These are NoIR LaserShield, borrowed as known-good, OD7 at 1064:
1622620155668.png

These are Trinity/Laservision USA, slightly higher VLT and slightly lower OD(I believe around OD5 at 1064):
1622620212410.png
 

Garoq

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
1,507
Points
83
Be aware that false advertising and or bloating product specifications or outright mislabeling them is also punishable by law and in the subject of PPE will even be considered a more serious charge. Furthermore, Last time I checked independent testing of a product offered by a company and sharing of said testing results wasn't against the law.
Giannis, Survival Laser is a reseller of the Eagle Pair line of laser safety goggles. Like other resellers, we rely on the product specifications and testing documents provided by the manufacturer in our advertising. We do not bloat or exaggerate the manufacturer's claims or specifications. That said, we occasionally do our own informal anecdotal testing with LPMs as well. In one case we determined that a particular pair of goggles appeared to have a lower OD when used with 635nm lasers (SL-RLG13), and reported that on the product page. Beyond that, Styropyro invited us to submit samples of goggles for his review, which we were happy to do. I think he did a very nice real world performance review using an LPM which also appeared to validate the EP specs, but the video was unfortunately pulled for questionable reasons.

Unfortunately we don't know if Why_You and his testing is "independent". We don't know his qualifications and if he owns or works for a competing goggles business, or is being paid by one to disparage other companies' products. He admitted he did his alleged anecdotal tests on uncalibrated equipment. We don't know why he apparently singled out Survival Laser for disparagement when there are many other resellers offering EP goggles including on Amazon and eBay. We don't know if the EP-15 goggles that were supposedly tested by his friend were genuine EP or fake (they do exist). We don't know if his friend is "independent" either. We know for a fact that his friend did not obtain EP-15 goggles from SL as they were just listed on the websites and none have yet been delivered to customers. We don't know his friend's qualifications, whether his equipment was truly calibrated and by whom, or even what equipment was used. We don't know why LPM testing was not performed or reported by either of them.

I have contacted my sales representative at Eagle Pair regarding the claims in these recent LPF posts and will report his response when it is received. In the meantime and out of an abundance of caution, SL will discontinue shipments of EP-15 goggles until this is cleared up to our satisfaction.
 

Spirit532

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
5
Points
3
In regards to eye protection, I am completely independent and impartial, as I work in a completely different field(EE, only occasionally build laser stuff, not eyepro). I bought the EP-15-4 goggles from an official reseller in a country closer to my location, and I specifically asked for the certificate to be sent with them, which I received. I bought them to protect myself from a 50W, DPSS Nd:YAG laser that I was repairing at the time. Not sure what came over me, but (thankfully) I got doubtful of the performance of the pair when I received them, and borrowed the NoIR pair while I arranged the testing.

What was written on the certificate was not what I saw when I got some time on a spectrophotometer in one of the leading research institutes in this country(through an acquaintance), where it was actively being used to monitor the production some sort of thin film filters, which is essentially what the EP-15-4 gogs are(dielectric filters). Those are the lines you see on the photos, deposition steps. Not relevant to my tests though.

I was told that the spectrophotometer is calibrated and accurate, and I have no reason to believe it not to be, as I got there just after they had finished a coating run that was controlled by the transmission spectra, directly in the vacuum chamber I measured the gogs in(and I had to listen to the shriek of chamber venting for 2 minutes).

And while I stand to gain nothing by continuing this conversation(PPE manufacturers, if you want to give me money to test your stuff, PM me lol), I have to say that even mentioning "LPM testing" in the context of validating filter coatings is absurd, as even the most advanced semiconductor-based power meters have neither the linearity, nor accuracy or dynamic range to perform these measurements to a quantitative result.
Sure, you could empirically shine a laser at the meter, then put a pair of gogs in the path, but that could easily result in an OOM of error.
Spectrophotometers are specifically built for this very purpose.

The only way to "truly prove" my or why_you's findings(which, by the way, I did not know of until I mentioned my results!) is for someone to send all sets of goggles, unopened, to an accredited cert house that can handle EN207 measurements(which would naturally include OD), along with a briefcase full of money for the services. I won't be doing that, as I am satisfied with the results I got, despite them being negative.

With that said, I'd love to see a Beijing EagleView representative "step into the light" and talk about this, but given that they're the bottom end of laser safety manufacturers with any hint of credibility, I doubt they'll care if they lose a few hundred units worth of sales.

I won't be using or buying Eagle Pair goggles in the future, from any supplier, and I personally would recommend that others do not either.
 

Giannis_TDM

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2019
Messages
625
Points
93
Giannis, Survival Laser is a reseller of the Eagle Pair line of laser safety goggles. Like other resellers, we rely on the product specifications and testing documents provided by the manufacturer in our advertising. We do not bloat or exaggerate the manufacturer's claims or specifications. That said, we occasionally do our own informal anecdotal testing with LPMs as well. In one case we determined that a particular pair of goggles appeared to have a lower OD when used with 635nm lasers (SL-RLG13), and reported that on the product page. Beyond that, Styropyro invited us to submit samples of goggles for his review, which we were happy to do. I think he did a very nice real world performance review using an LPM which also appeared to validate the EP specs, but the video was unfortunately pulled for questionable reasons.

Unfortunately we don't know if Why_You and his testing is "independent". We don't know his qualifications and if he owns or works for a competing goggles business, or is being paid by one to disparage other companies' products. He admitted he did his alleged anecdotal tests on uncalibrated equipment. We don't know why he apparently singled out Survival Laser for disparagement when there are many other resellers offering EP goggles including on Amazon and eBay. We don't know if the EP-15 goggles that were supposedly tested by his friend were genuine EP or fake (they do exist). We don't know if his friend is "independent" either. We know for a fact that his friend did not obtain EP-15 goggles from SL as they were just listed on the websites and none have yet been delivered to customers. We don't know his friend's qualifications, whether his equipment was truly calibrated and by whom, or even what equipment was used. We don't know why LPM testing was not performed or reported by either of them.

I have contacted my sales representative at Eagle Pair regarding the claims in these recent LPF posts and will report his response when it is received. In the meantime and out of an abundance of caution, SL will discontinue shipments of EP-15 goggles until this is cleared up to our satisfaction.
Simply enough, LPM testing wasn't performed because simply it is not an option when trying to validate goggles, Hobbist or even professional LPMs are not suitable due to their non-ideal spectral response, Huge temperature coefficient, Low accuracy and sensitivity etc, Spirit(Referred by you as Why_You's friend) did visit one of the contacts that lend him access to a lab with calibrated equipment, Reson he did not specify the lab name or wasn't able to provide more info is purely confidential as he mentioned as a means of security by the lab. And yes he wasn't paid or sponsored in any capacity to test the goggles. He bought them directly from the manufacturer if I recall correctly for working with his DYI Nd:YaG Q switched system.

I do accept your argument of you being just a resaler as valid, The problem with styro's video yet again is that an LPM cannot and should not be used as any sole mean to validate any OD or other rating on laser goggles. What needs to be used here and what is used in the industry is what Spirit and Why_You used, A spectrophotometer. You say what's the difference between that and a spectrometer?
one(spectrometer) measures the presence of light and the other(spectrophotometer) quantifies it using its own known-spectrum source usually by transmission, but sometimes reflection. Essentially a spectrometer with a calibrated light source for a baseline and a detector that measures that light in relation to something like a cuvette with your biological samples or a coating you want to see the absorption spectrum of.

And one last thing, I do believe that if anybody wants to resell any form of PPE that will be used to shield against a specific hazard that they should run their own tests even though the manufacturer has provided specifications, Really surprised you guys haven't done that seeing how you clearly acknowledged that at least 1 pair of goggles in the past wasn't in line with specs and now with all the concerns that Why_You and puppi both being valid customers have raised.
 

Why_you

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Messages
5
Points
3
So to sum up your answer: You do not plan to send EaglePair goggles to an independent 3rd party lab to get them tested. You do not have the equipment to properly test the goggles you are receiving. You are completely relying on the information the manufacturer sends you. You only perform “anecdotal” testing. Is that correct?

Do you at least have the equipment to test your EP 15-4 goggles? The test on the transmission setup showed a transmittance of over 1% for 1064 nm, you should be able to test that with a normal Nd:YAG laser. I would love to see the results of that testing posted here.

Why did neither I nor Spirit use a LPM for our tests? Because that’s not how you measured the optical density. You measure that characteristic with a spectrophotometer. Those goggles have an optical density rating. We measured the optical density with the correct equipment for the job. You DO need a LPM if you want to measure goggles according to EN207, because that test protocol requires that the goggles can withstand a direct laser hit for at least 10 seconds (or 50 pulses) while transmitting less than 1 mW of power. I don’t have the equipment to perform this kind of testing, but I encourage you to get those tests done at a 3rd party lab, because the aim of those tests is to demonstrate that the goggles will protect you in the worst-case scenario. The OD is just a mathematical number that says how much light gets through, but it doesn’t tell you if the goggles can actually withstand a laser of that power.

The best way to show that the EaglePair goggles that you are selling is to demonstrate that they are safe. Get them tested and publish the OD vs wavelength chart.

Why did I buy EaglePair goggles and why am I “attacking” you? For the same reason that a lot of other laser enthusiasts bought your stuff: Because you came recommended. I wanted safe, cheap laser goggles and Styropyro recommended your products. I am a chemistry grad student and I am not paid by any other laser or goggles company. You know my full name and location, you should be able to confirm that by googling (my university is ~20 km east and 25 km north of my home address).

About the “we don’t know his qualification” part: No, I am not a laser researcher, but I have acquired quite a bit of experience with spectroscopic measurements. The testing protocol that I followed to test my EaglePair goggles was recommended to me by a friend who works at a major manufacturer of laser safety equipment (every laser lab has goggles from that company). I don’t work there and I haven’t received any money from them (because if I did, why would I buy EaglePair goggles if I had access to proper high end goggles?).
 
Last edited:

Garoq

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
1,507
Points
83
I will chime in. While I do not have the certification results for the spectrophotometer I had access to(strictly controlled lab, couldn't carry USB sticks in/out, which is why they're also photos), I did bring multiple known-good goggles from reputable manufacturers, and have acquired spectra for them at the same time(within 30s) to eliminate the possibility of the device being faulty or reading incorrectly.
Attached are those additional spectra.

These are NoIR LaserShield, borrowed as known-good, OD7 at 1064:
View attachment 72830

These are Trinity/Laservision USA, slightly higher VLT and slightly lower OD(I believe around OD5 at 1064):
View attachment 72831
Please label the X-Y axes, and the numbers on the left are illegible.
 

Spirit532

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
5
Points
3
Please label the X-Y axes, and the numbers on the left are illegible.
Zoom in. It's perfectly legible, and I haven't had anyone complain about it.
X is wavelength in 50nm increments, Y is transmission from 0 in 10% increments.
 

Garoq

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
1,507
Points
83
Zoom in. It's perfectly legible, and I haven't had anyone complain about it.
X is wavelength in 50nm increments, Y is transmission from 0 in 10% increments.
Nope. Completely illegible.
 

gazer101

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
648
Points
63
Point in case is, since SL is such a popular US-based vendor of these goggles, they have a reputation to uphold which is being challenged right now.

Instead of blindly trusting independent testing, SL should be spending a few hundred dollars to test batches every now and then. Increasing prices to compensate for this shouldn't be a big issue
 

Spirit532

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
5
Points
3
Point in case is, since SL is such a popular US-based vendor of these goggles, they have a reputation to uphold which is being challenged right now.

Instead of blindly trusting independent testing, SL should be spending a few hundred dollars to test batches every now and then. Increasing prices to compensate for this shouldn't be a big issue
The issue with that is that you must eliminate all points of bias or tampering. That's why you go independent, and ideally with a "secret buyer" system too. But that costs money, and it seems like SL does not wish to spend any, only make it.
 

gazer101

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
648
Points
63
The issue with that is that you must eliminate all points of bias or tampering. That's why you go independent, and ideally with a "secret buyer" system too. But that costs money, and it seems like SL does not wish to spend any, only make it.
By independent testing I meant shipping it to sytropyro or Joe Blow is not sufficient, it needs to be sent to an actual lab with the right equipment
 

Spirit532

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
5
Points
3
Yes. Secret buyer who then sends the packages(with no means or incentive to tamper) to an accredited lab that's capable of and allowed to conduct official EN207 tests.
 

Garoq

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
1,507
Points
83
Eagle Pair wrote:

"Hi Gary and LPF members,

We appreciate your feedback and support over the years from the forum. Our aim is to provide a safe and affordable option for the laser operators and hobbyists.

Sorry that it took a day to reply since we received the email from Gary about the post on LPF. We had to check some history data to come back with a valid answer to the questions.

First thing first,

1. The dip of OD at around 505nm for the EP-1 models.

When we received the first email from Gary, we were confused by the chart where the numbers from upper and lower X axes does not match. 480nm is where we normally see the fluorescent effect on the model when a UV band light source is shined on it.

EP Image 1.jpg
However on review of the data and we confirmed that there was a design flaw that was overlooked by us in the filter made by us prior to 2020. The main area that we designed this filter was to be used with 532 and 1064nm, where both main wavelengths are tested and verified with LPM at a military level laser laboratory here in China. We are happy to support an exchange program through Gary for anyone that had an earlier version EP-1 filter to change to the new EP-1. We can also support Gary to send the new EP-1 filter to “why_you” to verify the dip was removed.

P.S. We have never received any communication directly from “why_you” for any other information as he mentioned that he attempted to contact us, apart from the communication through Gary. If we had the photo of 515nm laser with 532nm laser next to it, we would definitely have a look at this problem sooner.

2. EP-15 at 1064nm with 1% transmittance.

We have looked through our historic data and current batch in production, there is no evidence that 1064nm at 1% transmittance. We have done another test today and the result as follows. You are welcome to proof otherwise with a simple LPM test, 1% transmittance at 1064nm and OD7 can be easily identified. Which does bring the question of the tested sample origins. Again we are happy to send another pair to the member “spirit” to verify in the lab he tested in.

EP Image 2.jpg
3. CE Marking wording.

Manufacturer’s evidence is commonly used in all notified body for CE. They do not simply just take any report from anyone, there is a process to verify the claims. Please let us know if you would like to know more. Both of the following section are from other manufacturer’s published certificates.

Here’s a section of ECS conformity for your information:
EP Image 3.jpg
And a DIN CERTCO conformity:"
EP Image 4.jpg
 

Why_you

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Messages
5
Points
3
Oh, they actually replied to an email. Their claim that they "did not get the picture of the 505 and 532 laser" is false, i have send them that pic as well as my data on the 24.2.2021 (see the pics below).

Second: That EP 15-4 data looks weird, why would you measure the transmission if you are interested in the absorption? Sure, you can convert those values (in theory), but spectrophotometers have a measurement range of 0-100% for Transmission while the absorption range STARTS at 0.something %. You don't care if your goggles transmit 20% at some wavelength that they aren't rated for, you want to know if the goggles transmit 0.1 or 0.001%. That's what the Absorption mode is for. OD7+ means that the transmission is lower than 0.00001%. That data has only 3 decimal places, so it could (in theory) only display 000.001%. That's OD6, how do you want to confirm that your goggles reach OD7+ if your machine can only tell you if they reach OD6? It would be really nice to know what spectrophotometer was used for this test.


Third: Yes, the top X axis on my graph doesn't correspond to the data (quirk of QtiPlot, that was a quick and dirty graph). But you can figure that out quite easily, it would be alarming if those goggles started to drop in the OD at 510nm.

Fourth: YOU DO NOT TEST LASER GOGGLES WITH A LPM. Not if you want to measure the optical density. This test tells you nothing about the OD, it just tells you that charcoal doesn't transmit visible light (goggles start to burn-> "OD" goes up). It just demonstrates that your goggles actually absorb some light at that wavelength, but it doesn't tell you how much (data is invalid as soon as you start to burn the goggles).

And it would be nice to get a more detailed answer than "the CE certificate says that they just compared the data from the manufacturer with the writing on the goggles. But trust us, we are legit". WHAT was tested? WHICH documents did they get? They apparantly do some sort of OD testing at their facility, can we see that data? Every other trustworthy manufacturer list OD vs wavelength graphs for all their products, what is the reason that EagleView doesn't do that?

EDIT: Why did it take so long for EagleView to respond to that problem with their EP-1 filters? How is it possible that goggles with a major flaw went out (until 2020?). This is not some obscure 1 in a million flaw where you have to dig deep to find it. This is something that absolutely should have been found in quality assurance. You just have to measure the OD to find this flaw, and that's basically the only thing that you can test for those laser goggles. What does your QA do? Do you measure the optical density of your goggles before you ship them out? How does your QA work? What do you test?
 

Attachments

  • EagleResponse.JPG
    EagleResponse.JPG
    35.1 KB · Views: 10
  • EagleResponse2.JPG
    EagleResponse2.JPG
    122 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:

lasingfox

Member
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
46
Points
18
I don't want to get too involved in this but, I sent an email last year to Gary with the issue. Just wanted to show that it was brought up to him and he's known for some time.

20fb70183f82133b8f66f38a4acf16dc.jpeg
 




Top