h a l f b a k e r yNice swing,
no follow-through.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
For those times when you really don't want an
eye
injury, try Ti-Ar glasses and sunglasses. With a
projectile-proof lens in the form-hugging frames,
they will deflect all sorts of crap from your
precious peepers.
Of course, they are totally opaque, so they have
tiny CCD "lenses" on the
front of them, feeding to
small, very high resolution screens on the back,
so
you can see what you're doing; where you're
going,
etc. In addition, autofocus, zoom, infrared and light intensification
technology have been built in.
Lightweight and incredibly tough, they're just like
your real eyes, only better for you in a sandstorm
/
battle / squash game or champagne fight.
In regard's to MBs Comment
http://xkcd.com/941/
[MechE, Feb 05 2013]
Actual body armor for your eyes.
http://www.bulletpr...on.shtml#Faceshield
Can a "titanium aramid blend" stop a 9mm FMJ fired from an MP5 submachine gun? [DIYMatt, Feb 05 2013]
[link]
|
| |
A regular pair of polycarbonate lenses that you can see through are probably *almost* as good for protection. |
|
| |
"Almost" ain't good enough. These are basically body
armour for your eyes and far more complicated than
anything clear. |
|
| |
So, how much is "good enough" eye protection going
to cost me? |
|
| |
How much is your sight worth? |
|
| |
I don't like the CCD idea, as it is too prone to failure.
Chances are if I am in a situation where I am worried
about projectiles, I will probably also be as worried
about my glasses leaving me blind as a bat. Couldn't
you do the work with mirrors? Like a periscope but
without the massive offset. Either way the optics are
now the weak link in the system, but replacing broken
mirrors could be easy. |
|
| |
I wonder what it would be like to have periscope
glasses that raised your point of view by six inches,
or indeed separated (more than normally) the
effective distance between your eyes. |
|
| |
I've been wearing eyeglasses since 1960, and I've
found the traditional "safety" lenses* and frames
to be more than adequate when eye protection is
required (industrial settings). I've never had a
need for full body armor. |
|
| |
"Safety" lenses and frames can cost about twice as
much as regular. |
|
| |
*("Safety" lenses are 2mm thick at the thinnest
part, as opposed to 1mm thick for "non-safety"
lenses) |
|
| |
If the CCD fails you always have the option of replacing it
or taking off the glasses to revert to use of a Mk1
eyeball. |
|
| |
I'm sure that's the case. The visual image of someone
wearing completely opaque glasses and walking around,
obviously sighted, appeals. |
|
| |
At one time (and possibly still today), Mercedes and Jaguar
used wolfram, an ore material from which titanium is
refined, to create special photoreactive tinted glass for
their cars. Research in that general diraction might help
remedy the opacity dilemma. |
|
| |
Are you trying to make the lenses opaque or merely to
appear opaque, [Alter]? |
|
| |
Actually, I was thinking about making them less opaque.
Sort of somewhat transparent, perhaps. |
|
| |
Where's the fun in that? I set out to deliberately make
them opaque, for visual effect. |
|
| |
Something like these are already used for high-power
laser work, where you Do Not Want the laser
anywhere near your eyes. (Cameras are relatively
easy to replace.) |
|
| |
Tungsten. Right. My mistake. Thank you. |
|
| |
It's still worth looking into. |
|
| |
Could work well for faceshields in hazardous workplaces,
especially in smelting and welding industries, where flash
burns are a problem. |
|
| |
Could and has, until the mid-70s apparently. Now we have
LCD auto-darkeners. |
|
| |