Is holography currently available for use and misuse?

Originally posted by jfj123

soooooo, what's your native language?

You are so desperate at this point, you appear to be left with nothing more than relentless sophomoric retorts. That is pathetic behavior, particularly from adults and those passing themselves off as adults.

Originally posted by Question

and yet you actually were in favor of one of capn'crunch's wacky joke threads some way back

Guess you just admitted to losing your own credibility as well

Saying thank you and extending courtesy to someone not yet exposed as a scammer equates to what you wrote? You seriously do have a severe problem with abstract concepts.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'm also very keen to see the pics of your laser work

It's just pictures of a laser beam in different light conditions and angles, from a tiny but powerfull laser i made for myself once..

The point being to see, if the laser beam can block light, reflecting off the background, from passing through the laser beam..

If a laser beam can block light, there is no reason for the two of us even starting the developement of the DASAR or Anti-LASER...

If a laser beam can't block light, on the other hand, we would get freakin rich, because a DASAR would for the first time ever allow for creation of holograms in full daylight!


So.. Here are the pictures:

Pic 1 - LASER beam in daylight

Pic 2 - LASER beam in daylight

Pic 3 - LASER beam in daylight, different angle

Pic 4 - LASER beam in daylight with smoke

Pic 5 - LASER beam at night with flash

Pic 6 - LASER beam at night with flash and long exposure


All of these pictures were taken with the laser pointing more or less in the direction of the camera. This way, the beam is the most visible.

I was having problems taking a good picture in the dark, because the camera had nothing to focus on.. After i turned the flash on by mistake, i was surprised to discover the beam is still visible, even tho there was no fog. It's one powerfull laser...

The big bright spot in all pictures is the source of the beam.

The beam looks the most solid at the beginning, but this is because of the angle. Closer to the camera, the beam becomes more and more transparent. This is not because it would be getting weaker, but again just the angle..

If i was taking pictures of the beam from the side, it would have the same intensity from the beginning to the end.

But it would be very transparent.

Even so, it is obvious, how the background can be seen through it, depending on the colour.

When the background is of a darker colour, the beam looks more solid, when the background is bright, the beam becomes more transparent. This is simple logic, since the light coming to the eye comes both from the laser beam and the background. Only towards the beginning of the beam does it look solid, but that's because of the angle. (in holography the laser doesn't point at the observers)


If i were to use a much more powerfull laser, it would be less transparent, but also a lot more bright.

A 1W green laser would be visible outside even in daylight, but again more transparent due to more ambient light.


It is possible to use a laser powerfull enough, that it would appear not to be transparent, but only because it would be so much brighter than the background.


Using such powerfull lasers for holography would result in an extremelly brightly glowing hologram. It would be obvious it is made of light.
But in daylight it would still be transparent due to the immense light intensity from the sun and couldn't resemble a real object.

A laser powerfull enough to appear completelly solid in daylight could make people blind just by looking at it from the side, because it would have to be MUCH brighter than the sunlight. And since it the light is much more bundled here, even just refractions from the air could do permanent damage to the retina.


The laser i used here is only 400x stronger than normal laser pointers, but still i have to use protection goggles when doing something with it, like cutting a floppy disk in half for example..


So i guess, other than making the hologram brighter than the sun, there is no way of making it non transparent in daylight. And making it brighter than the sun doesn't really accomplish much, other than making it obvious and dangerous.


So i guess we should start the work on DASAR as soon as possible...

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

soooooo, what's your native language?

You are so desperate at this point, you appear to be left with nothing more than relentless sophomoric retorts. That is pathetic behavior, particularly from adults and those passing themselves off as adults.

It was a serious question which you obviously would rather not answer. I understand, no problem.

Just curious but why am I sophomoric for asking you what is your native language?? You are way too defensive sometimes.

Originally posted by CaptnCrunch
Okay!

I admit it!

I know nothing about holograms. You guys got me. But I thought Casablanca being a hologram was pretty good.

It was hilarious!

You entertained us all, except for OrionStars, who bought it..

On the other hand, your posts helped keep me sane during all this...

People have stated their opinions. Everyone is entitled personal opinion. However, if all people have to offer is nothing more than sophomoric behavior, and if the mods allow it, use this discussion for your mutual admiration society party. Enough-is-enough is already on overload and about ready to implode.

Originally posted by OrionStars
People have stated their opinions. Everyone is entitled personal opinion. However, if all people have to offer is nothing more than sophomoric behavior, and if the mods allow it, use this discussion for your mutual admiration society party. Enough-is-enough is already on overload and about ready to implode.

Oooh you're going to implode. lets sit and watch the fun.

I find it incredibly hillarious that you try to equate something as subjective as your opinion to actual facts (which we've posted over and over again.)

But please. By all means go ahead with your implosion.

EDIT nevermind, I'm sure even expecting an implosion from you would be asking too much proof. So I went ahead and found an actual video of an implosion.


www.youtube.com...


I doubt Orions' implosion was as masterful as this one. But I figured I'd show a grander one.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by Question]

[edit on 25-1-2008 by Question]

Originally posted by OrionStars
People have stated their opinions. Everyone is entitled personal opinion. However, if all people have to offer is nothing more than sophomoric behavior, and if the mods allow it, use this discussion for your mutual admiration society party. Enough-is-enough is already on overload and about ready to implode.

Actually there has been a lot of factual information posted here and even an experiment to help prove a certain aspect of lasers. I'm honestly not sure what more you expect.

If you have factual data the contradicts or refutes anything that has been posted here, "against YOUR side", please post it.

Originally posted by OrionStars
However, if all people have to offer is nothing more than sophomoric behavior

If all people have to offer?

We were offering fact after fact and asking you questions.

You haven't answered any of them, nor have you presented any facts.
The only things you presented, thinking they support your theory, weren't even related to the topic.


Besides, all you do is pick one sentence out of the post, complain or insult about it and ignore all the real questions. Then you blame us of doing the same.

I tried discussing it with you, but you simply didn't cooperate.


That's why i decided to present as many facts as possible, so that OTHER people can realize and understand why holograms in daylight can't work.


If you were to offer anything, any facts or logic supporting your beliefs, i would accept it and analyze it and if i was wrong, i would admit it and learn something new.

I have given you the benefit of a doubt so many times.... But you didn't make any use of it. Too bad.

[edit on 25/1/08 by deezee]

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually there has been a lot of factual information posted here and even an experiment to help prove a certain aspect of lasers.

Did you check out the pics? I know they are boring. What i should have done instead is make a video of this laser cutting a floppy disk in half or burning wood or maybe lighting a cigarette. Now that would be more interesting!

But i wanted to proove, that without an imaginary black or anti-laser, it is not possible to stop light from coming through the beam. It can not be non-transparent in broad daylight.


I think by now this is pretty obvious for most people anyway and the only reason OrionStars won't accept it is because he doesn't want to admit to being wrong.

I can understand that in fact. Especially after so many pages of the thread.

One day he will hopefully learn, that admitting to being wrong isn't humiliating at all, quite the opposite in fact.

But untill then..


P.S. Would you believe me, if i told you this laser is only 74x44x18 mm big? It was an experiment - i wanted to see if it is possible to make it so tiny and yet so powerfull..

Originally posted by deezee

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually there has been a lot of factual information posted here and even an experiment to help prove a certain aspect of lasers.

Did you check out the pics? I know they are boring. What i should have done instead is make a video of this laser cutting a floppy disk in half or burning wood or maybe lighting a cigarette. Now that would be more interesting!

Yes actually the pics were really cool as they showed EXACTLY what you were referring to. Couldn't have asked for more.

But i wanted to proove, that without an imaginary black or anti-laser, it is not possible to stop light from coming through the beam. It can not be non-transparent in broad daylight.

Could you set up one red laser and one green laser at right angles so the beams intersect? See where I'm going with that?

P.S. Would you believe me, if i told you this laser is only 74x44x18 mm big? It was an experiment - i wanted to see if it is possible to make it so tiny and yet so powerfull..

Is your power supply in a separate housing or is EVERYTHING in that little box? If the power supply is included, how did you solve the thermal issue from the supply?

Originally posted by jfj123
Ironically, in spite of a few "day dream believers" (Monkee's reference), I've learned a bit here so I appreciate everyone who has given real, solid, factual information such as Question and deezee, just to name a few. So thanks again !!!

It is my pleasure to contribute whatever i can. Besides, i've learned quite a few things from you and some other intelligent people here as well..


BTW: I still don't know where those questions were leading, you know - pointing at the stars and measuring the distance to the moon.

You said it was leading to a point.. What was it? I'm curious..

Okay, I'm going to attempt to jump into this thread from a serious perspective. Let me start by saying I have no proof whatsoever and this is only speculation, because as we all know now, I have absolutely no knowledge about holograms or how they work.

Regarding using a hologram as a decoy in a battlefield under fairly controlled conditions (brought up in a posted article) - I think this might be possible. I estimate that the military is technologically about 20 or so years ahead of the public sector. I think holograms have made some big strides in the last 20 years. So if we were to assume (I know - big assumption) that they were 20 years further along than today, I don't think it's completely unrealistic to assume we could fool the enemy into thinking there's a real battletank on the field when it's just a hologram. At least at night. I will quote my source as my imagination.

As for the idea that 9-11 was a series of holograms -- I think that idea is pretty silly. It would simply require too much unproven untested technology, too much timing, too much luck (that thousands of witnesses with their video cameras didn't catch the government's mistakes), and too many things happening in too many places at the same time to be successful. I mean if 7 years after 9-11 our government can't even escort a military airship AT NIGHT through rural texas without getting caught - how do you expect them 7 years ago, to have done something about 700 million times more complicated in broad daylight in multiple parts of the country. Not to mention there are so many other cheaper ways to go about doing something like this than using holograms - a technology that, even if it is 30 years along, could not produce something convincing on that kind of scale. Maybe 100 years from now. That will be pretty cool. Complete wars will be fought and we won't even know if they're real or not. Oh wait, they did that in that stupid movie Wag The Dog.

So that's what I think. And I also think holograms need to be regulated by the government because I saw a dog hologram the other day that I thought was real and I thought it was going to kill me but it was just a hologram.

Oh yeah and question. I really am pretty ignorant on this. But it does tie into the OP since we're talking about the lengths the government would go to stage 9-11. Why would the U.S. fake 9-11 anyway? Was it to get an excuse to go to war with Iraq so we could take their oil? But oil/gas became so expensive. The American people are going broke because of it. And now it's finally affecting the economy to the point where that's going down the tubes. If it continues like this, soon we'll have political upheavel. So you're saying the current gov't did this to get rid of itself? Not to mention public relations when you go to war are never good so now everybody hates us. We've lost billions of dollars on the war (weren't we supposed to gain something by it) Faking this whole thing hasn't really gained us a darned thing. (political rant over)

[edit on 25-1-2008 by CaptnCrunch]

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes actually the pics were really cool as they showed EXACTLY what you were referring to. Couldn't have asked for more.

Thanks! It makes me feel at least a little bit better after spending four hours on it...

Originally posted by jfj123
Could you set up one red laser and one green laser at right angles so the beams intersect? See where I'm going with that?

That would create a yellow point at the intersection. Or, if you combine the two beams through a special diagonally mirrored glass cube, you can combine the two beams into one yellow one.

Unfortunatelly i'm all out of green lasers. Often i build something and love it, but have to sell it as it is usually for someone else..

But i do have two extremely rare blue lasers waiting for me in the customs office..

I can try when they release them.

Originally posted by jfj123

P.S. Would you believe me, if i told you this laser is only 74x44x18 mm big? It was an experiment - i wanted to see if it is possible to make it so tiny and yet so powerfull..

Is your power supply in a separate housing or is EVERYTHING in that little box? If the power supply is included, how did you solve the thermal issue from the supply?

Everything is in that little housing. The power source is a hobby grade LiPo, from an old helicopter i broke.

This battery is capable of delivering many ampers to keep a helicopter in the air, so it hardly heats up.

What does heat up tho, is the laser diode itself. That's why i glued two IC heatsinks to it. It keeps the temperature down to around 40-50° after 4 minutes.. It does get warm and less powerfull with that, but it's not critical untill it reaches 70° or more.

I was thinking of adding active cooling via a peltier TEC element. It works by removing heat from one side and transferring it to the other..

One side freezes and the other gets hot. You have to cool the hot one so more heat can be transferred from the cold one. Attached to the laser diode it would allow me to push it a bit harder without killing it.

But for that i would need a larger enclosure...

That's gonna be the next one i make for myself after the blue ones are done of course...

reply to post by deezee

You said it was leading to a point.. What was it? I'm curious..

It's nothing major and I'm still trying to figure out exactly how to present it. Some of it has to do with the u2u I sent you earlier about computer computational capacities.

Originally posted by CaptnCrunch
Okay, I'm going to attempt to jump into this thread from a serious perspective. Let me start by saying I have no proof whatsoever and this is only speculation, because as we all know now, I have absolutely no knowledge of holograms or how they work.

Regarding using a hologram as a decoy in a battlefield under fairly controlled conditions (brought up in an earlier posted article) - I think this might be possible. I estimate that the military is technologically about 20 or so years ahead of the public sector. I think holograms have made some big strides in the last 20 years. So if we were to assume (I know - big assumption) that they were 20 years further along than today, I don't think it's completely unrealistic to assume we could fool the enemy into thinking there's a real battletank on the field when it's just a hologram. At least at night. I will quote my source as my imagination.

As for the idea that 9-11 was a series of holograms -- I think that idea is pretty silly. It would simply require too much unproven untested technology, too much timing, too much luck (that thousands of witnesses with their video cameras didn't catch it), and too many things happening in too many places to be successful. There are so many other cheaper ways to go about doing something like this than using holograms - a technology that, even if it is 30 years along, could not produce something convincing on that kind of scale. Maybe a 100 years from now. That will be pretty cool. Complete wars will be fought and we won't even know if they're real wars. Oh wait, they did that in that stupid movie Wag The Dog.

So that's what I think. And I also think holograms need to be regulated by the government because I saw a dog hologram the other day that I thought was real and I thought it was going to kill me but it was just a hologram.

I'll chime in and say that, I believe it was in one of the survival threads. This topic also came up. One of the posters cited a general that said that hollographic technology wasn't as advanced to be able to fool the enemy as you describe. He (the poster) didn't say whether for day light or night time, just that it wasn't as advanced yet. HOWEVER! the poster, citing the general, said that it was probable to use the technology to confuse Infra Red technology (do hollograms create a lot of heat???)

Again, I am simply citing another poster on the survival forums who stated this and I thought it was interested IF this actually has merit. (The reason why it was brought up in te survival forums was because we were figuring out ways to fool Infra Red scanners should there ever be a situation-X martial law type of scenario and people have to run)

reply to post by CaptnCrunch

Regarding using a hologram as a decoy in a battlefield under fairly controlled conditions (brought up in an earlier posted article) - I think this might be possible. I estimate that the military is technologically about 20 or so years ahead of the public sector. I think holograms have made some big strides in the last 20 years. So if we were to assume (I know - big assumption) that they were 20 years further along than today, I don't think it's completely unrealistic to assume we could fool the enemy into thinking there's a real battletank on the field when it's just a hologram. At least at night. I will quote my source as my imagination.

I could be wrong but I believe that particular article discussed an infra red hologram which would fool radar but was not a visible hologram. If it's the article I'm thinking of that is.

Originally posted by Question
HOWEVER! the poster, citing the general, said that it was probable to use the technology to confuse Infra Red technology (do hollograms create a lot of heat???)

No, not really.

I believe the most likely explanation for that would be a powerfull IR laser.

Focused into a spreading cone it could completelly blind IR and night vision goggles and even IR tracking systems.

IR lasers are actually the most common ones, and can be extremelly powerfull.

Coupled with a tracking system and focused into a narrow beam it could even confuse a heat seeking missile.

reply to post by deezee


Thanks for the explanation. It does seem like what you stated seems to be more probable. Although, do you think it's probable that they can focus this laser into taking the shape of an actual object, like say a tank? The reason I'm asking is because, again, according to this thread and the poster that cited the general, said that they were planning on using it in a similar fashion to, again confuse spies (wether persons wearing IR or spy planes overhead) into thinking there was more of an object (a batallion of tanks) when there were none. Kind of how we tried to fool the germans in WW2 with the inflatable tanks and troops (which didn't end up working as planned anyway), only they'd use this laser technology.

Originally posted by Question
Although, do you think it's probable that they can focus this laser into taking the shape of an actual object, like say a tank?

This laser no, as it is IR and therfor invisible.

A visible RGB laser projection system would be needed and something to project the thing on.

The problem being, that the beams going to the projection would be visible as well.

Crossing laser beams from different angles might create 3D pixels in air, but there are other problems related to this.


I will look into creating real 3D holograms further tomorow.. I'll ask some people, who know pretty much everything about lasers..

Originally posted by Question
The reason I'm asking is because, again, according to this thread and the poster that cited the general, said that they were planning on using it in a similar fashion to, again confuse spies (wether persons wearing IR or spy planes overhead) into thinking there was more of an object (a batallion of tanks) when there were none. Kind of how we tried to fool the germans in WW2 with the inflatable tanks and troops (which didn't end up working as planned anyway), only they'd use this laser technology.

Hmm, i have an idea.. Since it is only required to fool IR sensors, IR lasers could be used to project 2D patterns on the ground, similiar to exhausts of a tank or even a battalion..

This wouldn't require a hologram, just a powerfull IR laser source and a scanner, to "draw" the pattern on the ground.. (scanners use mirrors spinning and changing angles, so the laser can stand still, but the beam goes anywhere you want it to.

For a spy plane looking in the IR spectrum to the ground from high above, the lack of 3D wouldn't be noticable.

It could fool a plane into shooting heat seeking missiles into the reflection on the ground.

The only thing to worry about is the heat seeker to lock onto the laser beam, but since it can be moved around it would be possible to drive it away...

But i'm just guessing here, trying to find the simplest solution..

I'll know more about it tomorow..