Talk:1681: Laser Products
- It prints eyes... that should be self explanatory. 184.108.40.206 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- Could also mean printing on the eye with a laser. Sounds possible but odd. 220.127.116.11 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- Laser eye printer sounds like the type of thing edgy people want. Imagine printing a pentagram on your pupil or sclera 18.104.22.168 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Laserjet is a trademarked brand of printers from HP. Does it have any meaning beyond the trademark. I know "Inkjet" is a type of printer that sprays a jet of ink onto the paper, but normally one would just say "laser printer" if one isn't referring to an Epson model Zeimusu (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I found this comic to be funnier than it was intended to be, especially "laser jet removal" because I'm an astronomy nerd and we (at least everyone I've stargazed with) always talk about how we shouldn't point the laser pointers at the bright, moving, blinking stars because that would be very bad and turn it into a shooting star.
On a side note, I wonder if Arctic Blues are powerful enough to be spotted by people on the ISS, and theoretically how much power and how focused a laser would have to be to blind someone in the cupola. Also how powerful it would need to be to burn a hole through its outside, assuming you had an ultra stable tracking mount. I need to know by Tuesday.
(Hi NSA, I know I'm on your watchlists for being the atheistic daughter of "Hassan" Muslim immigrants, a communist, and a tinkerer of really dangerous science, but this is xkcd and I am sure this is the least sketchy "what if" that has ever been asked on this site.) International Space Station (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- The first part of that question was tested in 2012. http://www.universetoday.com/93987/amateur-astronomers-flash-the-space-station/. The article mentions that the 800 million lumen (dubious) searchlights came in brighter than magnitude 0 but the 1 MW blue laser was "also visible". From the picture it looks to be about magnitude 2 or 3. To match the sun's brightness (for blinding purposes) you'd need to get that up to about -26.5. Making up a 29 magnitude difference means you'd need to make your laser about 400 billion times brighter, or about 400 petawatts. You can probably bring that power draw down significantly by focusing the beam more, but since the Earth's power consumption is only about 2.5 petawatts (per Randall), you're already pretty far outside the realm of possibility. 22.214.171.124 13:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
When I say blind, I mean "blind" in the same sense of "I accidentally flashed my green laser pointer in my eye via my mirror." So that would be just 35mW at 20ft. Couldn't you develop an ultra-focused laser (atmospheric distortion aside) that was able to focus all that energy onto an astronaut's eye from the ground? International Space Station (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Laser guide stars are impressively bright at a quarter of the distance to your orbit. 5 kW laser brooms have been proposed for laser satellite removal. The main problem with laser astronaut surgery is probably your huge relative velocity; they won't be visible through your windows long enough to be targeted. You might be more successful powering a laser cannon from your solar array and trying to strike Baikonur. .42 (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
An inkjet printer is very definitely not xerographic printing, which refers to a dry printing process. A better term would be "raster" rather than "xerographic" although the former still does not imply converting the image to pixels, which appears to be the point the sentence is trying to make. At least "raster" means the image is converted to scan lines...126.96.36.199 02:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)