Slashdot Mirror

Do you have a reference for police radar guns only having an output in milliwatts?

This one says it outputs 10mW nominal. They've got a version that looks dash-mounted with the same claimed wattage, so I don't think it's due to being small.

Do you have a reference for police radar guns only having an output in milliwatts?

This one says it outputs 10mW nominal. They've got a version that looks dash-mounted with the same claimed wattage, so I don't think it's due to being small.

Canon claims 200+ years lifespan for their archival quality paper and ink, but it's going to cost you a bundle.
http://www.opticsplanet.net/canon-pro-platinum-photo-paper-8-5-x-11-20-sheets.html

Archival quality DVD-R or even CD-R is probably a better bet in the long run. Those formats are so pervasive now that they probably won't just up and die for a very long time.

A look at the cost of some imagers. Note that there is a difference between thermal imagers and heat seekers. etc. http://www.opticsplanet.net/heat-seekers-termal-imagers.html The start at about $3900.00 and go up from there. A decent one that the cops will purchase with your tax dollars is about $14,000-$40,000 each. And cops love to spend your money on these fancy toys and go out of their way to justify why they need such extravagant equipment.

The article didn't mention the availability of the mounting hardware. It attaches an iPod Touch mounted in an Otterbox protective case to a side-mounted picatinny rail. That seems much more handy in combat situations than digging an iPod out of one's pocket. This is what makes it not just another ballistics app for the iPod Touch and iPhone. Mounting it on the rifle could be a big deal in certain situations, and lots of rifles can be fitted with picatinny rails on the side.

While I have a lot of respect for KAC, I'm not so sure that a rail-mounted iPod is such a great idea. Even though the user seeks to protect their rifle from damage, in reality stuff gets beat to shit. iPods, while admirably sturdy, just aren't ruggedized for that kind of environment, even in an Otterbox. I Am Not A Long Distance Shooter, but for ballistic applications it's pretty hard to beat something simple like this: http://www.opticsplanet.net/leupold-retractable-ballistic-chart.html The idea that someone is going to be mounting and dismounting an iPod from a number of different rifles is rather unlikely, and giving it ballistic data for the KAC PDW is simply ludicrous-it's a very short range defense weapon, not even remotely close to being a precision rig.

Seeing as you're getting a lot of comments about cracks, immersion shorts, replacability, and cost, what if you modified the idea a bit...

I'm thinking, immerse the board in oil:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/strip-fans,1203-4.html

Then seal it in watertight container, maybe something like:

http://www.opticsplanet.net/pelican-1450-protector-medium-waterproof-case.html

So this would be:

thermally conductive - check
electrically insulating - check

immersible - check
shock resistant - maybe?

You'd need to puncture the case to allow for heat exchange, cabling, etc, but the oil would leak out of any water-permeable joints, so a completed project would likely be quite well-sealed.

If you wanted a completely-contained PC, and clear plastic and an LCD to the side. Plus Wifi and Bluetooth, waterproof keyboard/mouse/whatever. You could have quite the critter on your hands.

Just a thought...

Ask, and Ye Shall Receive...

Those aren't scopes. Those are sights.

When you use the term "level", without clarifying that you're talking about a hopper fill-level indicator, you're being deceptive

The answer is in the article - the photo was taken with an 11-inch telescope. If you're flush with cash, just go get one of these (Meade 12"), although you'll need to use it well outside of any big urban area, light pollution around cities kills viewing conditions. (You can get a similar scope for less money if you take more of a DIY approach, but then you have to learn much more about it. Scopes like Meade and Celestron are for people who just want to spend the money and get the results.)

Why does everybody think this is just a case of some kid who bought a handheld laser pointer and is trying to point it at an airplane that flew overhead?

Come on people, it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to figure out that a combination of a commercial/scientific laser along with a good quality sighting scope mounted on a high quality tripod wouldn't be too difficult or expensive to slap together. Hell, just get a good laser and mount it on top of a good pair of military observation binoculars and you'd probably be ready to rock & roll.

It also doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to realize that from a mountain top or other high peak of land you could target aircraft flying directly towards your position from a few miles away. If it's flying in your direction then its horizontal and lateral positions won't change very much so you wouldn't need a sophisticated tracking system. You wouldn't even need a very high position if you intend on targeting aircraft that are landing - just an open area a mile or so from the end of the runway.

That "linking" of optical telescopes together is called optical interferometry and the linking usually requires that you know the relative location of the two or more optically identical telescopes to within a wavelength of the EM radiation you're viewing in. For radio telescopes, this is a meter (more or less). For optical telescopes, this requires that the telescope tubes be very close together and usually mounted in a rather strong frame.

There are some very cool optical systems that can make the linking easier by eliminating some of the unknowns in location within the optics. There are also some newer control systems that can make this still easier. But the main optics in both tubes still need to be almost identical. The same model of the same brand isn't quite good enough. They usually need to be matched (fabricated at the same time to have the same characteristics).

An alternate (and much more achievable) plan would be to let your brain trial and error out the differences between two tubes in a binocular telescope. There are a number of websites out there describing some of the more successful efforts to do this. Collimation is again critical (the two tubes had better be pointing in the same direction) and even then you're probably going to get a headache.

But while you're rubbing your temples to deal with the headache, you'll be thinking back to those absolutely amazing views you saw through the binocular eyepieces.

There are some bigger binoculars that blur the difference between binocular and telescope. Oberwerk sells some very nice 100mm binoculars with telescope-style eyepieces for under $1600 and just a pair of 100mm binoculars will only set you back $400. Together, those 100mm tubes gather more light than a 5" refractor and the view through properly collimated binoculars is just plain better than through a single tube (IMNSHO). But before you think about laying out that kind of money, get some decent, inexpensive 70mm binoculars and keep going to those local meetings. Once you get to the point where you know you want more, you'll have a bit more experience and have learned a bit more about where to spend your money.

Regards,
Ross

That "linking" of optical telescopes together is called optical interferometry and the linking usually requires that you know the relative location of the two or more optically identical telescopes to within a wavelength of the EM radiation you're viewing in. For radio telescopes, this is a meter (more or less). For optical telescopes, this requires that the telescope tubes be very close together and usually mounted in a rather strong frame.

There are some very cool optical systems that can make the linking easier by eliminating some of the unknowns in location within the optics. There are also some newer control systems that can make this still easier. But the main optics in both tubes still need to be almost identical. The same model of the same brand isn't quite good enough. They usually need to be matched (fabricated at the same time to have the same characteristics).

An alternate (and much more achievable) plan would be to let your brain trial and error out the differences between two tubes in a binocular telescope. There are a number of websites out there describing some of the more successful efforts to do this. Collimation is again critical (the two tubes had better be pointing in the same direction) and even then you're probably going to get a headache.

But while you're rubbing your temples to deal with the headache, you'll be thinking back to those absolutely amazing views you saw through the binocular eyepieces.

There are some bigger binoculars that blur the difference between binocular and telescope. Oberwerk sells some very nice 100mm binoculars with telescope-style eyepieces for under $1600 and just a pair of 100mm binoculars will only set you back $400. Together, those 100mm tubes gather more light than a 5" refractor and the view through properly collimated binoculars is just plain better than through a single tube (IMNSHO). But before you think about laying out that kind of money, get some decent, inexpensive 70mm binoculars and keep going to those local meetings. Once you get to the point where you know you want more, you'll have a bit more experience and have learned a bit more about where to spend your money.

Regards,
Ross

That "linking" of optical telescopes together is called optical interferometry and the linking usually requires that you know the relative location of the two or more optically identical telescopes to within a wavelength of the EM radiation you're viewing in. For radio telescopes, this is a meter (more or less). For optical telescopes, this requires that the telescope tubes be very close together and usually mounted in a rather strong frame.

There are some very cool optical systems that can make the linking easier by eliminating some of the unknowns in location within the optics. There are also some newer control systems that can make this still easier. But the main optics in both tubes still need to be almost identical. The same model of the same brand isn't quite good enough. They usually need to be matched (fabricated at the same time to have the same characteristics).

An alternate (and much more achievable) plan would be to let your brain trial and error out the differences between two tubes in a binocular telescope. There are a number of websites out there describing some of the more successful efforts to do this. Collimation is again critical (the two tubes had better be pointing in the same direction) and even then you're probably going to get a headache.

But while you're rubbing your temples to deal with the headache, you'll be thinking back to those absolutely amazing views you saw through the binocular eyepieces.

There are some bigger binoculars that blur the difference between binocular and telescope. Oberwerk sells some very nice 100mm binoculars with telescope-style eyepieces for under $1600 and just a pair of 100mm binoculars will only set you back $400. Together, those 100mm tubes gather more light than a 5" refractor and the view through properly collimated binoculars is just plain better than through a single tube (IMNSHO). But before you think about laying out that kind of money, get some decent, inexpensive 70mm binoculars and keep going to those local meetings. Once you get to the point where you know you want more, you'll have a bit more experience and have learned a bit more about where to spend your money.

Regards,
Ross