Laser HUD Projected on Retina

Ligur writes: "The scoop is at the Seattle P-I: 'This fall, Bothell-based Microvision Inc. plans to give people the same cybernetic experience that once existed only in a screenwriter's imagination. Through a device called Nomad, people will be able to read information from a small, wearable computer that projects an image over their normal vision.'" Looks like they've come a long way in the past three years.

Comments

Transparent? Not really

[Software]

The display is a red, transparent computer screen, but, in fact, is no screen at all. The device shoots a tiny laser beam that draws patterns onto the retina so that only the wearer sees the images.

OK, fine, but how come I can barely see the guy's right eye in the picture? There's not much point in a transparent screen if the surrounding equipment is not tranparent. Maybe if it was off-axis it would be more useful.

Still, this does sound like promising technology.

I tried it at ACM1...

[gtada]

The problem that I have with their technology is that it seems to have a very narrow range of focus. Unless you're pretty still, it's out of focus. Unless there is some way to really anchor this unit to your head (like maybe some surgical implants!), I'm not really interested.

Burn in

[cr@ckwhore]

I hope this HUD doesn't have the same problem as old monocrhome monitors with burn-in. That would suck a lot.

Re:whoa! just hope that laser isn't hacked

[JonWan]

Yeah the product safty people will make them put a warning label on it.

"DO NOT LOOK DIRECTLY INTO LASER"

Re:Retinal damage

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for posting an informed, INSIGHTFUL comment about this technology - no mean feat here on Slashdot. I'm a neuroscience grad student - and I love it when interesting science stories make it here on Slashdot - but I HATE the inevitable idiotic posting that follows, already we have many posts with the same unthinking, knee-jerk responses:

--Whoa! Hope this won't fry my eyes!
--Hope someone doesn't "hack" this thing..;

and so forth. Just because something is a laser doesn't mean it will shoot evil death rays into our eyes! Again, it's the crowd of "Boy! I can hack Perl/C/C++, that MUST mean I'm smart about non-computer science topics too!" that ruins any discussion here, by flooding the postings with crap - even the JOKE posts are repeated! Literally, EVERY retinal projection story here gets the same 100+ retinal barbecuing comments!

Informed comments like yours give me some small measure of hope that there can be an interesting discussion about the development and effects of this research, but I'm too much of a pessimist to really believe that.

With regards to the topic at hand - I don't see this as being great for EVERYONE - ie an elderly person with bad vision and sensitive retinas probably wouldn't want to wear this for a long time, but I see little long-term damage for normal eyes. I for one would love to try this out in a second! More tests should be done, and knowing the people that do this kind of reseach, before any real approval or public use of this tech, such studies will have to be done.

Sincerely,
Kevin Christie
Neuroscience Program
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
crispiewm@hotmail.com

Studies?

[GSloop]

I know that several others have mentioned it, but here's a bit different take.

We all know that when you release DNA modified foods (IE Monsanto et al) you only have to show that no one can prove it causes catestrophic damage. (I know, I'm simplifiying it alot, but that's the general standing.) Since there aren't any really well funded opponents to the technology, then it pretty much sails through. The general rule seems to be...If it's for business, we don't want to hold this up, cause it might cost someone a lot of money. If it might harm someone - well, the market will fix things...

Which brings me to another issue - why do the "market driven" proponents hate the tort/legal system so much? When the system works right, the "market" determines what works by trial and error! So, if you're one of the unfortunate few to pick the wrong one, you're injured (loss of funds, health etc.) and others learn from your unfortunate mistake. It's the ones injured by the "market" process that need the legal system the most, and also the ones that deserve it the most too! So, if you love the market, then you really should love the legal system too. It's the only way a true market can be fair - or do you not care that those who you "learned" from are uncompensated Guinea Pigs?

Back to the issue at hand - what serious tests are the FDA going to require for something like this? How long will the test run? I'd hate to use a product like this, and find out in ten years that my right eye was irreparably damaged, and in my later years of life I'd loose vision from that eye! I'd bet that the requirements for testing and use are quite a bit less than we'd all assume. Lastly, I'd bet that any company that releases such a device will put the manufacturer and the seller in a shell corp, to limit the liability losses. They won't hold many assets, and will pass revenue and such to the parent. 15 years from now, provided there is some problem, good luck suing the company - they just paid out huge bonuses to the execs and went out of business.

If you think the above is poppy-cock, go do some research about the IUD Dalcon Shield. The manufacturer (who was really regulated by the FDA) got a horrible product into the market, and didn't care when it irreparably damaged many many women - many couldn't have children after their problems!

The idea's cool and all, but the real killers are in the details. How much testing is done. Who peer reviews it. How often must they report problems to the FDA, and what problems do they have to report? These and many other details will significantly impact the safety of the device. Finally, what legal liability the company might risk, will also impact how informal they are with the testing and implimentation.

I wouldn't be using the product myself for any period of time, until I understood the impacts of the following, and knew where the company stood.

Cheers!

These questions have probably been answered

[theonomist]

...by now -- since the article they linked is dated Monday, June 18, 2001. Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! June of last year!

See here. It's already been on Slashdot, even.

Yeah, the hot news is always on Slashdot, kids.

Re:whoa! just hope that laser isn't hacked

[merlin_jim]

Actually, this isn't such a big problem as you would think. First off, the laser itself is very low power... secondly, the Center for Disease and Radiological Health has guidelines for any lasers that will be accesible to the public when in use, and this includes direct eye-scanning techniques. Just a quick review:

• Total power must be no greater than 40 uW (micro-Watts... that's .04 mW, compared to 1-5 mW laser pointers)
• The beam must be continuous and not pulsed
• The full exposure allowed is some awfully low value, something like .1 mW / cm2
• If any of the scanning equipment fails (the tiny mirrors that move the laser beam back and forth across your retina), there must be a safety interlock that shuts the beam off
• The safety interlock must be independant of the control software so a bug in the software doesn't result in a problem
• The safety interlock must operate within 75% of the mirror settle-time. Once the mirrors stop moving, they take a discrete amount of time to settle on one point. The safety interlock must completely dampen the beam before 75% of this time goes by; if the mirrors settle in 4 picoseconds, the interlock engages in 3

So, all in all, if they have a CDRH variance (and you have to have one to sell laser equipment), they're pretty safe. These values are all very conservative; the same regulations specify that laser pointers are not allowed to be used for commercial applications within 5 miles of an airport, because of the chance of accidently hitting and airplane and distracting the pilot. I've applied for a variance myself as a laser entertainer, and let me tell you; they're fairly complete in checking on everything... that's why most clubs don't have their laser effects anywhere near their audience... too difficult to get the equipment certified for that.