4 ms·
They're no harder to aim than a gun at the equivalent distance, and you get the added benefit of continuous emission rather than a single shot (and no wind drif
by lutorm 16y ago
They're no harder to aim than a gun at the equivalent distance, and you get the added benefit of continuous emission rather than a single shot (and no wind drift or lead).
However, the tech specs for that laser show the "Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance" at which a 0.25s unprotected exposure does not cause lasting effects to be 149m. That's far, but not THAT far. So as long as the subject doesn't stare into the beam (which probably is more likely than you think given the brain's almost compelling instinct to look at sudden movements), you still have to get pretty close. (Unless you fit it with a collimator, of course.)
- Retric 16y agoBullets are dangerous when they hit a 1m^2 target, 1w lasers are dangerous when they hit a 1cm^2 target. Aiming at a 1m^2 target at 150m is hard, aiming at a 1cm^2 target at 150m is next to impossible.
- lutorm 16y agoAt 150m, the beam is 1.5m across (the divergence is 1.5mrad). Putting a 1cm^2 target at 150m within a 1.5m beam is not at all hard.