Lake Balaton Laser experiment to determine the curvature of the Earth, if any.
- Thread starter Sandor Szekely
- Start date
- Status
deirdre
Senior Member.
and he was in the rubber boat standing up. yes? ( i really need to see this video to visualize)
[edit add: Mick beat you too it]
off topic:
i think you should put something on your video that tells kids not to look into lasers with a camera. or is that just a myth that some lasers can damage your eyes?
"Slope correction" would be when you take the slope out of a set of data - i.e. you are correcting a curve for the errors introduced by a slope. Here you've (ostensibly) taken one point of a curve out of a slope. It's more of a "curve adjustment" - fixing an additional slope that was introduced by a curve at that point.
this was the boat:
THIS IS A DIFFERENT MEASUREMENT HERE:
just to show the boat with a person standing in it:
yes that is a good idea to point out the hazards of the laser beam!
I asked about this our laserist before the pre-test and she said that over a longer distance (like mile) the laser (like this one) is not harmful to the eye and our eye reflex will protect us.
But the camera may be damaged at a longer distance too.
We did not have this problem on the pre-test or the first run, all cameras were unharmed. Actually we all were looking into the laser and had no problem at all, but actually I wanted to take sunglasses to protect our eyes.
I think all precautions shall be made not to harm anyone, or anything.
Interestingly animals were okay with our laser, and some birds were flying through it
I would avoid to go now into the other experiment data and results - not to get mixed up. I know that you have an idea of what different measurements we made Mick, but others may get confused on the setup differences.
So my answer (just for you here
) is that :on this late night measurement we had the laser beam at 50cms (1.6 feet) above the water and experienced a huge angle of bend in the beam at a certain distance as we discussed. Before reaching this exact point of high angle upwards bend, the laser was becoming larger and like the amoeba - also climbing a bit higher.
SO here it is the same thing with the refraction, but more extreme.
In the daytime experiment that we are discussing now we had not experienced such a point of high angle upward bend, I supposed due to the higher laser setup.
SO at daytime last measurement it did not become significantly larger at the distances.
skephu
Senior Member.
How did you demonstrate that it is indeed a "direct hit"?
Looking at this photo:
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20160816_064208-leveling-1-png.20800/
the direct hit is to the board but the camera still sees a very bright laser spot on the shore. So just because you can see the laser in the camera does not imply "direct hit".
Ray Von Geezer
Senior Member
As I said in my last post, I did think mixing the two experiments has caused confusion, especially because you've made very similar claims for both, so thanks for clearing up that there were two experiments, and in the night-time one the laser height was very close to the water. Just for clarity, are you saying that experiment can be disregarded for the time being?I would avoid to go now into the other experiment data and results - not to get mixed up. I know that you have an idea of what different measurements we made Mick, but others may get confused on the setup differences.
So my answer (just for you here
on this late night measurement we had the laser beam at 50cms (1.6 feet) above the water and experienced a huge angle of bend in the beam at a certain distance as we discussed. Before reaching this exact point of high angle upwards bend, the laser was becoming larger and like the amoeba - also climbing a bit higher.
SO here it is the same thing with the refraction, but more extreme.
In the daytime experiment that we are discussing now we had not experienced such a point of high angle upward bend, I supposed due to the higher laser setup.
SO at daytime last measurement it did not become significantly larger at the distances.
The thing that still confuses me though is, it was the night time images you originally put forward as proof of being able to get a direct hit above the board (below), and the sequence of images you took from that experiment clearly showed the laser rising on the board. You're now saying you've got images that show a direct hit above the board in daylight but I can't see any real evidence of it?
The "arm raised" picture that you were previously presenting as proof shows the beam diverged by a considerable amount, enough to illuminate a mans arm, so by that distance it must have been several feet in diameter surely?
Also, on the daytime experiment, what was the purpose of the board? Surely having the beam levelled so close to the edge made it pretty much useless after a very short distance - as soon as the beam passed the top of the board you lost any chance of being able to take meaningful measurements.
Ray Von
Last edited:
Clouds Givemethewillies
Senior Member
You really shouldn't be doing this if you think that sunglasses would protect you!
Mine are rated >OD5, DR L6 (532nm.)
https://www.thorlabs.de/NewGroupPage9_PF.cfm?ObjectGroup_ID=762
I'm guessing class 3B for your's..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety
Last edited:
Clouds Givemethewillies
Senior Member
I don't think so.. more like 27mm. per kilometer at best.
https://www.rp-photonics.com/beam_divergence.html
Edit:
Sorry, the figure (for full width ) should be half the above figure because their calculator did not respond to changing to the YAG 2nd. harmonic.
Last edited:
Ray Von Geezer
Senior Member
I'm not sure of the distance, but this doesn't appear to be that far out, and the laser is over six inches in diameter, so it's diverged considerably from the ~2.5in spot shown on the guy's palm.
Ray Von
I'm not sure of the distance, but this doesn't appear to be that far out, and the laser is over six inches in diameter, so it's diverged considerably from the ~2.5in spot shown on the guy's palm.
Ray Von
this is the calibration distance of 717 meters. the refraction was changing the shape of the beam continuosly but not diverging significantly. you can see them better in the videos that we will include in the explanation
if it were the doubble size within 717 meter, and diverging with this rate then we couldn't have made measurements over 2 - 3 kms as the beam wouldn't be visible at all
Sure it would, it would just be more spread out.
snaphat
Member
That is my understanding as well. It's a claim that doesn't make sense. And it doesn't seem they did what mick asked them to do (collect many points to plot)... Keep in mind they were asked to do that under the assumption of much more favorable conditions than what they saw so any data collected is all the more suspect. Having seen these folks assert their conclusion even prior to the experiment I'm not surprised to see it being insisted here in spite of the actual results. It seems as if they intend to release a video asserting this is proof regardless.
Clouds Givemethewillies
Senior Member
You can't really compare the near-field and far-field diameters in transition. Apples and oranges. The bigger the near field, the smaller the far field can be. You can't do better than 'perfect'..
DarkStar
Active Member
How do you know it wasn't diverging significantly if your only measurement at larger distances was the ability to see the laser in the camera?
If you have the laser itself pointed slightly up the beam spread could easily make it appear that it's hitting the camera as the edges spread out.
Here is what I suspect is going on -- laser pointed slightly up, beam first hitting the board and then spreading out a bit so as you stick your camera up a bit you see 'glints' of the laser beam.
[GALLERY=media, 39]LakeBalatonLaserDiagram by DarkStar posted Aug 23, 2016 at 10:29 AM[/GALLERY]
How do we show this is NOT what is happening -- that's what we need next.
Yet more complications! Fascinating stuff.
http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/techniques/microscopylasers.html
(lots more variables at the link).External Quote:
Presented in Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of laser beam geometry and divergence in the near and far fields. As discussed above, the beam can be considered essentially a parallel bundle of wavefronts that undergoes little spreading in the near field. Beyond the near field, the beam divergence angle (θ), which is measured from the center of the beam to the edge (e(E-2)), grows larger and becomes the critical parameter in determining beam diameter (D) according to the equation:
Beam Diameter (D) = 2L • tan(θ)
where D is the variable signifying laser beam diameter and L represents the length of the distance from the laser exit aperture to the measurement point on the beam.
The issue could be avoided if there was simply a tall enough target, like a tall narrow board, where you could get a better (and verifiable) estimate of the center of the beam.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
I understand it clearly well, THANKS to Mick
So, in your understanding, is "slope correction" something done to physically level the laser, as I believe you implied?
Interesting in some photos the laser seems to converge (presumably with perspective), but then diverge much more abruptly after a point. Here I've rotated and then compressed the beam to make this more apparent. This is it hitting the boat:
And her continuing past the boat into the reflection zone:
Is this a function of the collimation? i.e. the beam is slightly converging, and so diverges more rapidly later?
And her continuing past the boat into the reflection zone:
Is this a function of the collimation? i.e. the beam is slightly converging, and so diverges more rapidly later?
Ray Von Geezer
Senior Member
What do you mean by "changing the shape of the beam continuously but not diverging significantly"? Using the scale you applied to that picture the beam is about 15cm in diameter. I could understand what you mean if it'd just got taller or wider, but it looks to have done both.
Why not? Look at your "arm raised" night-time picture, the beam has expanded by a very large amount but it's still clearly visible - easier to locate if anything because you're looking down an expanding cone, not a beam of regular size.
Ray Von
Bass In Your Face
Active Member
Is this photo a depiction of a laser "direct hit" into the camera?
If the question about "direct hit" of the laser on the lens can't be answered, and the only measurements we have for the longer distances are taken from the camera's "direct hit", then the entire experiment is moot.
Its about as simple as that.
Ray Von Geezer
Senior Member
It's a shame they didn't just turn the board around when they found the level mark was going to be so close to the top of the board.
Ray Von
Clouds Givemethewillies
Senior Member
Could just be the camera focused too close.
Rory
Closed Account
So have we got any actual data from this yet? All I'm seeing is some pictures of boats and lasers.
I imagine at some point there'll be a video or report or something, and Sandor can start a new thread called, "Claim: Lake Balaton experiment proves earth is flat". But until then...
I imagine at some point there'll be a video or report or something, and Sandor can start a new thread called, "Claim: Lake Balaton experiment proves earth is flat". But until then...
The closest we have to actual data is this post, which essentially amounts to the laser being approximately level, and then rising up an estimated amount.
snaphat
Member
Based off of what Ian has said on fb it seems like they only have about 10 to 20 points of data along the path of the laser and that they probably don't have humidity data so not enough to actually compensate for anything since the laser curved and they'd need a lot of data points along the curve as well as that data
Bernard Mc Donnell
Member
Just a quick question, @Sandor Szekely seemed to be implying earlier that @Mick West had essentially almost all the same data as he himself has. Sandor also says that he has literally gigabytes of video and photos as well as data. All I've seen, unless I've missed something, are a couple dozen photos and some rough measurements (and some estimates).
So my question is this, has Sandor submitted more than just these few dozen or so photos? And if he has not, how does he actually expect this test to be evaluated in a peer review manner? It's simply not enough for him to share a small number of photos and then expect people to wait for what could very potentially be an extremely biased, and possibly heavily edited, video.
So my question is this, has Sandor submitted more than just these few dozen or so photos? And if he has not, how does he actually expect this test to be evaluated in a peer review manner? It's simply not enough for him to share a small number of photos and then expect people to wait for what could very potentially be an extremely biased, and possibly heavily edited, video.
I have 32GB of data from Sandor. However this does not include any identifiable measurements beyond the 0.75km "leveling". I don't think I have anything that can indicate what a "direct hit" is.
There are sequences of 22MB raw photos, like:
And similar videos.
I do not have video or many photos from the boat for the final series of measurements. It is possible that this was in the first set Sandor tried to send me, but which failed to download.
Bernard Mc Donnell
Member
32GB? Am I mistaken in remembering he said that you have essentially as much of the data as he does? I include photos and videos as data and not just written measurements. I'd have to check back to find his exact quote. Thanks for the speedy reply @Mick West.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Yes, well said. I think that's exactly what's happening. The target is much too small. Any "direct hit" on the camera lens could, as well, just be a lower corner of a large irregular beam.
Sandor, I warned you months ago, long before you started this thread, about distortion from atmospheric refraction. It's not just the inferior mirage effect. There is turbulence as well. Warmer air is rising from the water surface and cold air is falling in to replace it. This is a turbulent process and light gets refracted in random directions. A partial cure is to do something I also suggested months ago: Put your laser on a ladder at least 3 meters above the water surface. Four meters would be better.
You also have to face facts. Even in a vacuum your laser beam would not be a line. It's a cone. I think there's more beam divergence than you were counting on.
I was the first to suggest that you follow the beam across the lake with a boat; but that was only so you could trace its path and you wouldn't lose it. Just by coincidence that rather silly Hawking show was broadcast. And you seem to be fixated on it. I think the next step is to put up a LARGE target on shore and test to see how large the beam actually is at, say, six miles. Have a fixed target and another sheet of white paper on a long stick that you can move around the perimeter of the main target to make sure you have measured the entire perimeter of the beam.
Last edited:
Rory
Closed Account
Ok, so to me that looks like:
1. A laser shining at a white board, labeled as being at the same place
2. A more diverged laser shining at a white board, labeled as being 717 metres away, and adjusted so it shines at the same place on the white board as the first laser
3. An empty white board, presumably empty because the laser is shining somewhat higher than the top of the board (as would be expected at 5.8km)
That can't really be it? After all that effort?
deirdre
Senior Member.
this is probably silly... but could it have something to do with the water vapour acting as a lens?
Source: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/plano-convex-positive-lens-focuses-a-high-res-stock-photography/128624547
Bass In Your Face
Active Member
For reference, here is someone else playing around with a 5mW green laser, at night. The video claims they are 1.5 km away.
and another..
and another..
DarkStar
Active Member
Random thing - Those 'rings' you see are due to constructive & destructive interference since the light isn't perfectly coherent.
Bass In Your Face
Active Member
If I can see the beam's origin before and after the pinnacle of the brightness (or how "direct" the laser is hitting the lens), isn't that an identification of an important margin of error for such an important calculation? (Unless there are more definitive measurements for those distances) Its just more obvious with video, and at night for better contrast (and their elevation, less refraction)?
- Status
Similar threads
Trending content
-
-
Thread '"Active Social Engineering Defense" and "Large Scale Social Deception"'
- Mick West
Replies: 22 -
-
-
