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



Survival Laser Open Thread

lasingfox

Member
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
68
Points
18
2. The company is Eagle Pair, not EagleView. We do not sell EagleView products. As I mentioned in another post, we have a supply of replacement filters for the older OD5 model and will ship them to anyone who requests them. So far, no one has contacted us.
did you make a public post on the SL site or reach out to anyone who purchased the defective goggles? i doubt anyone will contact you if they don't know theres a fault.
 



Why_you

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Messages
9
Points
3
1. I have not received any updated OD charts, but I can ask again.
2. The company is Eagle Pair, not EagleView. We do not sell EagleView products. As I mentioned in another post, we have a supply of replacement filters for the older OD5 model and will ship them to anyone who requests them. So far, no one has contacted us.
3. I can’t help you with that. They always respond to my emails.
Point 1: Yes, please do that, every other manufacturer/seller of laser safety equipment does that
Point 2: Do you mean this comment on some forum in a thread that no one who's owning those goggles is going to read?

It was the OD5 model that apparently has a small dip in the absorbance curve at 505nm, not 532nm. (SL-GLG1X, 190-540nm & 800-1700nm OD5). The manufacturer (Eagle Pair) stated that it was willing to replace the filters for any customer that purchased these goggles from before 2020. We have a number of these filters in stock if anyone would like them.

So what you're saying is that you knew for months that you sold faulty personal protective equipment and decided to do nothing about it? You didn't even send out an email to the customers that trusted you with their eyesight saying something along the lines of "Hey, maybe don't use those goggles, they are over 100 times worse than their specifications suggest".
If i sell you a rope for bungee jumping and discover later that it can only hold 5 kg instead of 500 kg should i also sit on my hands because it's just a "small deviation" from the rated specification? Oh, but don't worry i'll happily replace the rope if you discover its flaw while you're bungee-jumping.

Point 3: Would you be willing to forward a questionnaire regarding their statement to them?
 

Garoq

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
1,525
Points
83
- The issue has been corrected.

- Notices have been posted on LPF and the SL stores.

- We don’t store customer’s private information for the purpose of future use.

NOTE TO CUSTOMERS OF SL-GLG1X EAGLE PAIR® GOGGLES PURCHASED PRIOR TO 2020: It has been determined by Eagle Pair® that some SL-GLG1X Eagle Pair® 190-540nm & 800-1700nm goggles manufactured prior to 2020 may have a dip in the absorbance curve between 505 and 517nm wavelength of about OD3 instead of OD5. Eagle Pair® has provided us replacement lens filters for any Survival Laser customer of these goggles that requests them. Customers can reach us about the replacements via the store contact page.
 
Last edited:

lasingfox

Member
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
68
Points
18
- The issue has already been corrected.

- 505nm is an obscure lower power wavelength.

- If used properly it shouldn’t ever be an issue.

- Notices have been posted on LPF and the SL stores.

- We don’t store customer’s private information for the purpose of future use.

- This is the last time we will respond to these messages.

NOTE TO CUSTOMERS OF SL-GLG1X EAGLE PAIR® GOGGLES PURCHASED PRIOR TO 2020: It has been determined that some SL-GLG1X Eagle Pair® 190-540nm & 800-1700nm goggles manufactured prior to 2020 may have a dip in the absorption curve at 505nm wavelength of about OD3 intead of OD5. Since the highest power laser diodes currently available at this wavelength produce about 100mW, these older goggles would allow about 0.1mW of 505nm light through them. Even though this is a very safe level of exposure, out of an abundance of caution Eagle Pair® has provided us replacement lens filters for any Survival Laser customer of these goggles that requests them. Customers can reach us about the replacements via the store contact page.
So I can just go blind with my multi watt argon laser with its 502nm and 514nm line? It's still under OD3 for 514nm which is one of the strongest lines from an argon ion and can be MULTIPLE WATTS!! There are other sources aside from diodes that can output wavelengths close to 505nm. Your ignorance of them is not an excuse to advertise it as safe.
 

Why_you

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Messages
9
Points
3
- The issue has already been corrected.

- 505nm is an obscure lower power wavelength.

- If used properly it shouldn’t ever be an issue.

Except it's not 505 nm. I send you the raw data via mail and posted graphs here on the forum, those goggles are above OD3 at 505 nm. They dip below OD 3 between 507 and 515 nm, and the main 514 nm Argon wavelength is right in that gap (that's what started it in the first place, i messaged you because those goggles are unsafe if you use them for Argon lasers).

To sum it up: It took you 31 weeks and 5 days after you received detailed measurements about serious flaws of personal protective equipment that you sold before you even put up a warning on your webstore. Google suggests a walking time of roughly 1000 hr from my home to you (plus 113 days on sea if i were to use a rubber dinghy), so i could have walked halfway across the globe and published that message on your PC faster than it took you to do the same task. Oh well.
 

Garoq

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
1,525
Points
83
Except it's not 505 nm. I send you the raw data via mail and posted graphs here on the forum, those goggles are above OD3 at 505 nm. They dip below OD 3 between 507 and 515 nm, and the main 514 nm Argon wavelength is right in that gap (that's what started it in the first place, i messaged you because those goggles are unsafe if you use them for Argon lasers).

To sum it up: It took you 31 weeks and 5 days after you received detailed measurements about serious flaws of personal protective equipment that you sold before you even put up a warning on your webstore. Google suggests a walking time of roughly 1000 hr from my home to you (plus 113 days on sea if i were to use a rubber dinghy), so i could have walked halfway across the globe and published that message on your PC faster than it took you to do the same task. Oh well.
Eagle Pair® has confirmed to us that the dip in absorbance for the pre-2020 manufactured SL-GLG1X Eagle Pair® 190-540nm & 800-1700nm goggles is between 505 and 517nm. The graph you had provided was incorrectly labeled, therefore there was confusion over the affected wavelength. We are updating the statement on LPF and the SL stores.
Unknown.png
 

Why_you

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Messages
9
Points
3
You mean the X-axis label that would have shown
-an optical density of <3 at around 488 nm, which is by coincidence the second strongest Ar emission line
-a sharp drop to < OD1 starting at roughly 510 nm
-no protection whatsoever at 532 nm
-an OD of 3 or higher at 505 nm?

I don't see how you could ever use either of those two labels to come to the conclusion that the drop in OD is around 505 nm, the axis at the top would have shown even worse results than the proper X-axis. Please, tell me how you came to the conclusion that the drop was around 505 nm. The graph doesn't show that for either label and the raw data doesn't show that either.

But it's good to see that you finally started a recall of the faulty goggles (albeit on an extremely limited scale), we'll know the OD of the replacement goggles soon-ish.

PS: If you need help with a recall because you don't have a list of consumers who have bought the faulty product you should contact the US Consumer product safety comission (USCPSC), they provide an online list of products that are recalled and can help you with the process of recalling those faulty laser goggles.
 

Garoq

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
1,525
Points
83
You mean the X-axis label that would have shown
-an optical density of <3 at around 488 nm, which is by coincidence the second strongest Ar emission line
-a sharp drop to < OD1 starting at roughly 510 nm
-no protection whatsoever at 532 nm
-an OD of 3 or higher at 505 nm?

I don't see how you could ever use either of those two labels to come to the conclusion that the drop in OD is around 505 nm, the axis at the top would have shown even worse results than the proper X-axis. Please, tell me how you came to the conclusion that the drop was around 505 nm. The graph doesn't show that for either label and the raw data doesn't show that either.

But it's good to see that you finally started a recall of the faulty goggles (albeit on an extremely limited scale), we'll know the OD of the replacement goggles soon-ish.

PS: If you need help with a recall because you don't have a list of consumers who have bought the faulty product you should contact the US Consumer product safety comission (USCPSC), they provide an online list of products that are recalled and can help you with the process of recalling those faulty laser goggles.
Not sure, I'm not going to slog through the entire thread again just to please you…but I made a mistake. You however made many more mistakes: You got the manufacturer name wrong, mentioned the wrong goggle model, made a gross error in your graph and got the absorbance drop wavelength range wrong yourself. Your claims were unsubstantiated (you use the alias "Why_you" after all, you've only been on this forum for a few months, we have no proof of your background, credentials, equipment or affiliations regardless of your claims) and we had no idea of the validity of them until we heard from the manufacturer. We then made a statement with the info they provided.
 

FancyToolbox

New member
Joined
Oct 3, 2021
Messages
4
Points
3
You mean the X-axis label that would have shown
-an optical density of <3 at around 488 nm, which is by coincidence the second strongest Ar emission line
-a sharp drop to < OD1 starting at roughly 510 nm
-no protection whatsoever at 532 nm
-an OD of 3 or higher at 505 nm?

I don't see how you could ever use either of those two labels to come to the conclusion that the drop in OD is around 505 nm, the axis at the top would have shown even worse results than the proper X-axis. Please, tell me how you came to the conclusion that the drop was around 505 nm. The graph doesn't show that for either label and the raw data doesn't show that either.

But it's good to see that you finally started a recall of the faulty goggles (albeit on an extremely limited scale), we'll know the OD of the replacement goggles soon-ish.

PS: If you need help with a recall because you don't have a list of consumers who have bought the faulty product you should contact the US Consumer product safety comission (USCPSC), they provide an online list of products that are recalled and can help you with the process of recalling those faulty laser goggles.
You are mistaken. Only a manufacturer must recall products. As a dealer you don’t have the right to ‘recall’ a manufacturer’s product. You are obviously not in the USA and don’t understand how things work here. You would need to contact the manufacturer and discuss it with them. As pointed out, you have no credentials to be testing any products and that is probably why the manufacturer ignores you. So you continue to harass a dealer.
 

ebbbiccc

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
3
Points
3
You are mistaken. Only a manufacturer must recall products. As a dealer you don’t have the right to ‘recall’ a manufacturer’s product. You are obviously not in the USA and don’t understand how things work here. You would need to contact the manufacturer and discuss it with them. As pointed out, you have no credentials to be testing any products and that is probably why the manufacturer ignores you. So you continue to harass a dealer.
I like how you, who created this account 10 days ago, make that statement.

Account age however shouldn't matter in this case, where the safety of many people is endangered, and where the decision, who is in the right or wrong, is a binary one. I personally am not very active on LPF, yet I am quite worried about people still defending Gary. Blinding oneself is a mistake that is only made once, and is hardly reversible.
Thus it is even more important, to realize the seller's fault and act mature and morally right, which is obviously not done here sadly.
I certainly hope that you and Gary realize this, and urge you to act, instead of ignoring issues, and trying to evade criticism and costs to resolve the issues with the goggles.

~ebbbiccc, a real person with a legitimate background
 

FancyToolbox

New member
Joined
Oct 3, 2021
Messages
4
Points
3
I like how you, who created this account 10 days ago, make that statement.

Account age however shouldn't matter in this case, where the safety of many people is endangered, and where the decision, who is in the right or wrong, is a binary one. I personally am not very active on LPF, yet I am quite worried about people still defending Gary. Blinding oneself is a mistake that is only made once, and is hardly reversible.
Thus it is even more important, to realize the seller's fault and act mature and morally right, which is obviously not done here sadly.
I certainly hope that you and Gary realize this, and urge you to act, instead of ignoring issues, and trying to evade criticism and costs to resolve the issues with the goggles.

~ebbbiccc, a real person with a legitimate background
I like how you created a new name just to respond to my comment 😂 No one has proven anything.The user has no credentials to test Eagle Pair’s goggles. This (still) a free country, he can state whatever he wants. But, with no credentials nobody should assume it’s the ‘truth’ (because everything on the internet is true, right?) and continuing to harass a dealer that has no control over making a ‘re-call’ is simply harassment.
 

Garoq

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
1,525
Points
83
I like how you, who created this account 10 days ago, make that statement.

Account age however shouldn't matter in this case, where the safety of many people is endangered, and where the decision, who is in the right or wrong, is a binary one. I personally am not very active on LPF, yet I am quite worried about people still defending Gary. Blinding oneself is a mistake that is only made once, and is hardly reversible.
Thus it is even more important, to realize the seller's fault and act mature and morally right, which is obviously not done here sadly.
I certainly hope that you and Gary realize this, and urge you to act, instead of ignoring issues, and trying to evade criticism and costs to resolve the issues with the goggles.

~ebbbiccc, a real person with a legitimate background
What part of this do you not understand?

NOTE TO CUSTOMERS OF SL-GLG1X EAGLE PAIR® GOGGLES PURCHASED PRIOR TO 2020: It has been determined by Eagle Pair® that some SL-GLG1X Eagle Pair® 190-540nm & 800-1700nm goggles manufactured prior to 2020 may have a dip in the absorbance curve between 505 and 517nm wavelength of about OD3 instead of OD5. Eagle Pair® has provided us replacement lens filters for any Survival Laser customer of these goggles that requests them. Customers can reach us about the replacements via the store contact page.

And you know who I am, yet you and others stand behind a facade and throw stones, and have the chutzpah to say "a real person with a legitimate background".
 

ebbbiccc

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
3
Points
3
I like how you created a new name just to respond to my comment 😂 No one has proven anything.The user has no credentials to test Eagle Pair’s goggles. This (still) a free country, he can state whatever he wants. But, with no credentials nobody should assume it’s the ‘truth’ (because everything on the internet is true, right?) and continuing to harass a dealer that has no control over making a ‘re-call’ is simply harassment.
First of all, look at my account age, then maybe use your brain to think: this is obviously not an alt account, unlike your account, at least it seems so.

Regarding your "No one has proven anything.": Yes, multiple people have proven that the goggles SL is selling are unsafe and out of spec. The sad thing is that they are SO out of spec, that it's laughable to debate with credentantials; you could test them yourself with the wavelenghts in the dip right now and even visually determine how bad the goggles are, even without a spectrophotometer, which is the tool one uses to get hard numbers. This is not harrassment of a poor, little, innocent dealer, this is absolutely valid and backed-up criticism regarding a (very) faulty product, so quit making dumb excuses for Gary, and use common sense.

~ebbbiccc
 

FancyToolbox

New member
Joined
Oct 3, 2021
Messages
4
Points
3
I like how you created a new name just to respond to my comment 😂 No one has proven anything.The user has no credentials to test Eagle Pair’s goggles. This (still) a free country, he can state whatever he wants. But, with no credentials nobody should assume it’s the ‘truth’ (because everything on the internet is true, right?) and continuing to harass a dealer that has no control over making a ‘re-call’ is simply harassment.
I like how you, who created this account 10 days ago, make that statement.

Account age however shouldn't matter in this case, where the safety of many people is endangered, and where the decision, who is in the right or wrong, is a binary one. I personally am not very active on LPF, yet I am quite worried about people still defending Gary. Blinding oneself is a mistake that is only made once, and is hardly reversible.
Thus it is even more important, to realize the seller's fault and act mature and morally right, which is obviously not done here sadly.
I certainly hope that you and Gary realize this, and urge you to act, instead of ignoring issues, and trying to evade criticism and costs to resolve the issues with the goggles.

~ebbbiccc, a real person with a legitimate background
The fact that you refer to ‘Gary’ as if you know him personally is interesting. Sounds like someone with a disgruntled past with SL. If you were truly ‘worried’ you would ‘go after’ the manufacturer. SL has no duty to do more than what has been done and inform people and replace the lenses. I personally use these goggles. SL has zero duty to change their business based on information from testing done with zero credentials from a random person on the internet. That is not how businesses work. Now, if you truly have all this care in your heart for users, bring your non credentialed information to the manufacturer… otherwise it is simply harassment of a dealer. Also, I suggest you contact every reseller across the internet instead of harassing a single dealer (which is suspect on its own) .. but they will tell you the same. If you believe it should be recalled, take it to the manufacturer.
 

FancyToolbox

New member
Joined
Oct 3, 2021
Messages
4
Points
3
Talk
The fact that you refer to ‘Gary’ as if you know him personally is interesting. Sounds like someone with a disgruntled past with SL. If you were truly ‘worried’ you would ‘go after’ the manufacturer. SL has no duty to do more than what has been done and inform people and replace the lenses. I personally use these goggles. SL has zero duty to change their business based on information from testing done with zero credentials from a random person on the internet. That is not how businesses work. Now, if you truly have all this care in your heart for users, bring your non credentialed information to the manufacturer… otherwise it is simply harassment of a dealer. Also, I suggest you contact every reseller across the internet instead of harassing a single dealer (which is suspect on its own) .. but they will tell you the same. If you believe it should be recalled, take it to the manufacturer.
 




Top