Hey,
Did you know that if you aim a telescope at some-ones cable box, or television, even from miles away, that your remote control might just work?
Here's what you do, aim the remote control through the eye piece, and then turn it off, or if it's off, turn it on.
Yea, it is fun...
Just don't shine it on an airplane. It is now a specific federal felony to illuminate an airplane with a laser unless you are the Department of Defense warning the airplane pilot he is straying into Washington DC.
Dave n
But an R/C isn't a laser, is it?
"Paul Hyett" wrote in message news:[email]...
Doesn't matter. The telescope collimates the IR beam, as IR has almost the same focal length as visible light.
Indeed, the gain (increase in power) from the telescope sending is the same as the improvement in light capacity from seeing. This is part of a more general thereom (rule) that says the gain of any antenna is the same transmitting as sending - normally applied to radio communications, but equally valid for light and indeed for all EM waves.
Yes, you're right. But the gain is only achieved by concentrating the light into narrow beam. By narrowing the spread of the light, it is intensified. Similar to focusing a flashlight
But, can the IR be more intense coming out of a telescope (at a distance) than it is as it's leaving the diode? Which is what one sees if he/she holds a remote to their eye and presses the button. No amplitude loss due to light spreading. Can a telescope project that IR beam into a tighter pattern into someone's eye, than if that person were to just hold the remote to his eye? I doubt that.
Errol NOLA
What do you mean? Light doesn't have a focal length. Optical systems have a focal length. And the IR is going to be invisible to the pilots, whether aimed direct or through the telescope.
I don't think I am understanding what you mean to say.
Clear Skies
Chuck Taylor Do you observe the moon? If so, try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/
In article , Chuck Taylor wrote:
He obviously means frequency or wavelength, but hasn't quite mastered the terminology.
"Joe Bergeron" wrote in message news:160120061106238437%[email]...
Yes, I meant frequency or wavelength. However, the focal length of the eye piece (and of the telescope itself if it is a refractor) will be slightly different in the IR due to dispersion (the change in refractive index with frequency). I was actually thinking about this effect - and whether focusing for visible light would still give a reasonable focus in the IR - when I wrote the above; hence my mangled sentence.
Like I said, try it with a flashlight first, if you've got to have an idea of dispersion. It's almost cohearant but the same diameter as the telescope light collector's lens.
Have you look into your television's remote control, pressed the button and started seeing spots?
Dude, the human eyes aren't even sensitive to your tv's remote control. Try all you want, and unless you actually poke an eye out with it, it won't blind you..
A television's remote control uses an Infrared diode. Just one, and like I said, the human eye isn't even sensitive to it for one. Second, the remote control will not blind you, you can look at it and press as many buttons as you want. The only real difference is that if you use a telescope, the beam will be narrowed down to a few inches in diameter, and travel farther. Farther, in miles. Since, it was never enough blind you when you looked at it, it will never be enough to blind anyone a mile away.
If anyone comes looking for you, it will probably be at the house you pointing at. If you're really lucky, it'll be the plumber, wondering who's changing channel.
I didn't say the TV remote, I said a laser.
Dave N
"David G. Nagel" wrote in message news:[email]...
No.
The original poster said "...your remote control..."
You said "Just don't shine it on an airplane."
After that you went off on an irrelevant tangetnt about a recent piece of U.S. legislation.
Please remember that
a) newsgroup posts do not vanish as soon as you read them; b) the US does not control the whole world, nor even the internet, nor even^2 usenet.
You are right. I mixed emitter modes. What I meant to say was don't shine a green laser (or red for that matter) through a telescope at an airplane. The tangent wasn't irrelevant just out of proper context.
SORRY!!!
Dave N
it's a bitch just trying to get MY universal remote to work with MY tv. do you know how long i'd have to sit there trying different remote codes for my neighbor's tv? probably way longer than i'd want to commit to a prank like this. i'd sooner chuck a brick through his window and hope it hits the channel button on his tv.
"The Flavored Coffee Guy" wrote in message news:[email]...
Since, you have a telescope, look at the Make and model of the TV.
Then Look up your Universal Remote's Codes at a web site, like this one: http://www.remote-codes.com/
Then you go to a www.tv.com and type in the word Ghost, then Haunt, then Haunting, and figure out which channels to change those distant televsions channels to.
If you were a ghost, and you wanted to hint at the fact that you were there using a TV, how would you do it???
The Telescope doesn't intensify any light. But, if you use an everyday flashlight you will see that it does act like a very directional spot light, and the light is more focused, and better concentrated over a very great distance. It may require binoculars to see the effect over a great distance.
As for you dipshit's who contemplate pointing the telescope, at airplanes, it was never my suggestion that anyone would. Stick with the subject of the thread, or get out!
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:37:28 -0600, "David G. Nagel" wrote:
I've never seen a remote control that uses a laser, just a simple LED, and at 800nm or so, the output is pretty much beyond where the eye is sensitive, so how would it even be detected at an airplane? And a telescope can't increase the available energy of the source, which is very low. It can marginally collimate it, but the inverse square law still holds, and the beam will become quite large before it gets to the airplane. There is no way to deliver a high energy density beam to the airplane from the ground using a remote control and a telescope.
No doubt if the FBI came across someone tracking airplanes with telescopes and remote controls they would arrest them, but that would simply be the product of ignorance, paranoia, and irrationality (even more so than the harmless act of aiming a <5mW laser pointer at a plane). I guess whether any charges would hold up in court would depend on what they thought your motive was in doing this; these days waving a magic wand at an airplane with the intent to interfere with it is probably enough to get you sent to prison.
BTW, a pilot with a PDA using an IR link is illuminating the cockpit with several orders of magnitude more energy than someone from the ground could possible deliver with a remote control.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson wrote:
Perhaps this is a topic for "Myth Busters" on the Discovery Channel. :-)
Wayne T. Watson (Watson Adventures, Prop., Nevada City, CA)
(121.015 Deg. W, 39.262 Deg. N) GMT-8 hr std. time)
Obz Site: 39� 15' 7" N, 121� 2' 32" W, 2700 feetOne of my fav shows!
On 14 Jan 2006 21:58:18 -0800, "The Flavored Coffee Guy" wrote:
A cooler thing to do would be to shove it up your ass and turn yourself into a popsicicle. ;-)
On 14 Jan 2006 21:58:18 -0800, "The Flavored Coffee Guy" puked:
Another thing is to stick a camera flash in the eyepiece holder and flash it into their house. That's pretty fun, too...
lab~rat >:-) wrote:
You must be pretty bored if this is "fun", or maybe you just need some clear skies .. like many of us :-)
Hey, if you got a telescope, a rainy day's great for haunting, if you wanna have fun.