Mr. Beam available for order - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: con-f-use
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 30, 2014, 12:15:27 pm
content: So the formerKickstarter Project"Mr. Beam" is nowavailable for order. They want a hefty €700 for hardware that is essentially worth maybe €200 tops. I want a nice little laser engraver for occasional work and was intrigued by the $259 "Hackers Kit" from the original campaign. If they had put that on for maybe €300 I might have been tempted. Now I can't help but think, are they trying to rip people off?

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2014, 02:18:17 pm
content: Be very sure you understand the safety implications and legal liability implications of using this device. The FAQ says, in effect, it is up to you not to make mistakes and blind andor poison nearby people.I sure hope the safety interlocks can't be disabled

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2014, 02:21:27 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on October 30, 2014, 02:18:17 pmI don't see any so they can't be disabled

author: con-f-use
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 30, 2014, 02:35:09 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on October 30, 2014, 02:10:23 pmExcept that the Kickstarter payed for the R&D costs, they don't provide support and very limited warranty and what they're selling is still just a kit you need to solder and assemble yourself. They claim it is open source. If they really provide the hardware design and full software, I'd wager we have clones for $200. I hope they'll do.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2014, 02:50:30 pm
content: Quote from: PA0PBZ on October 30, 2014, 02:21:27 pmYes, and "" is probably the only way I would use this device.Personally I regard this device as unacceptably dangerous, and hope I'm nowhere near anybody that uses it. I hope no innocent bystander is blinded.In BT Research Labs everybody anywhere near lasers had to watch a video of a primate's face being slowly and painfully ablated by a laser. To gently remind them of that there were posters saying "Do not look at laser with remaining eye" - and reflective metal surfaces were very carefully excluded from the area.

author: con-f-use
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 30, 2014, 03:14:47 pm
content: Yes yes, sensible people build an enclosure around it, that cuts power to the device when opened AND has some means of fume exhaustion. I can cut off my hand with a saw as well if I'm clumsy or stupid. The thing sold as a kit, has warning labels and safety glasses with it. So, at least, people who buy it are warned and need a bit of skill to get it to work. That's good enough for me. Still, sensible sellers don't tempt idiot buyers in such a way. Not the best move of them but they don't advertise it as children's toy. I don't think more needs to be said and we can focus on other aspects, yes?

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2014, 04:09:23 pm
content: @tggzzz,I am not an active animal rights person but the mental image of what you described in that HSE video leaves me cold. I know animal experimentation has always been part of science but the idea of ablating an animals face, any animal with a laser is barbaric in the extreme. Your wording appears to suggest the animal was also conscious at the time. That makes me want to throw up ! More proof that the human race can be an extremely cruel speciesI do not need to see someone or an animal harmed to know the effects of a laser on soft tissues. The same applies to utility power and high energy content RF.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2014, 08:55:20 pm
content: Quote from: Aurora on October 30, 2014, 04:09:23 pmUnfortunately, those types of videos are aimed at those who would need to see such shocking images to get the idea... probably those with not much more intelligence than that primate.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2014, 11:22:39 pm
content: Quote from: con-f-use on October 30, 2014, 03:14:47 pmA saw can, at worst, damage the user or someone next to the user.This equipment could blind someone anywhere within range of the beam - which could be long distance or wide area.This equipment could damage the lungs (etc) of someone outside, if they walked into and breathed extracted fumes.Big difference.Will you post the "warning information" supplied with the kit on this forum? If not, why not?

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2014, 11:38:12 pm
content: I seriously wonder if this equipment's designer/manufacturer/seller/distributor/user have seen such videos?Quote from: Aurora on October 30, 2014, 04:09:23 pmIt was designed to shock and sicken, and to burn itself indelibly into the viewer's consciousness, pun intended. From anecdotal accounts, it succeeded and therefore may have saved people.I believe the film was shot in the 60s; attitudes were very different then. I can tolerate (not like) the concept of sacrificing one animal if it benefits many people; there are far worse things visited on people all the time.QuoteMost people will say something similar. Whether or not their behaviour over time reflects that is a completely separate issue.All pilots know spins too near the ground are dangerous - nonetheless several die by "spinning in" every year. Most people will say they understand that speeding in a car is dangerous - but still many do speed, often "because they are a good driver"! Please don't let us get dragged into the minutiae of those analogies.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2014, 11:40:28 pm
content: Quote from: amyk on October 30, 2014, 08:55:20 pmOr the ignorant, ot the arrogant, or those illustrating the Dunning-Kruger effect, or youngsters that don't yet realise what mortality means.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2014, 01:03:05 am
content: Quote from: Aurora on October 30, 2014, 04:09:23 pmWell class E (which i think means fatal or beyond extreme pain) experiments are general supposed to be very rare at UBC (http://animalresearch.ubc.ca/animal-statistics.html#2012) there isn't much done. In any case usually to get ethics approval there has to be some justification and saying it is for grossing out people in a safety video isn't likely to pass any proper ethics review.(Maybe it was a video from another study that was doing something hopefully more important than HSE use)But for things like vaccine trials (ebola for example) animal testing is critical.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2014, 01:18:37 am
content: Quote from: a210210200 on October 31, 2014, 01:03:05 amTimes have changed since the 60s. (Consider MKULTRA for starters!)In any case, I don't know the original reason for the experiments in the videos. It is conceivable that they were "repurposed" into safety videos.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2014, 01:44:41 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on October 31, 2014, 01:18:37 amThat is true I've seen old videos of no way that would ever get approval or even be considered remotely safe today.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2014, 02:33:02 am
content: Quote from: a210210200 on October 31, 2014, 01:44:41 amI have a book entitled "The Boy Electrician", full of fun things for children to do. Chapter 13 has a section describing what to do with your X-ray machine. It does warn you not to use it for more than a few minutes otherwise your skin may become irritated.As a kid I repeated stunk out the kitchen with hydrogen sulphide, and sloshed mercury around trays, and put lumps of sodium into water. We were warned, however, not to put acid with the the potassium cyanide.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2014, 02:43:43 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on October 31, 2014, 02:33:02 amSpeaking of stupid dangerous machines and X-rays (also old) Shoe-fitting fluoroscope are just insane (they had kids use these). (You could get 1Sv apparently from one sample machine back then in one viewing, for a sense of scale look at the red blocks onhttps://xkcd.com/radiation/)

author: con-f-use
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 31, 2014, 09:39:36 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on October 30, 2014, 11:22:39 pmYes and there are laws against reckless endangerment and battery. It is a kit wit a 1W laser diode, that you are supposed to build yourself. It comes with warnings. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.Quote from: tggzzz on October 30, 2014, 11:22:39 pmBecause you can read it on their website. I am not affiliated with them and I don't even want to buy the kit.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2014, 10:13:18 am
content: Quote from: con-f-use on October 31, 2014, 09:39:36 amSo what?! There are laws against reckless driving, but that doesn't stop innocent third parties being killed.I'm a little touchy on this subject since, like many people I am rather deaf. If I'm blinded then it would indirectly kill me - I would commit suicide. But if this equipment was responsible, then before doing that I would do all in my power to ensure the (ir)responsible individual did not pass on their genes.QuoteA sufficient response.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2014, 10:17:40 am
content: Quote from: a210210200 on October 31, 2014, 02:43:43 amJust so. The only saving grace is that the dangers weren't understood back then.For the avoidance of doubt, I hate wrapping kids in cotton wool. My daughter thought I did wrap her in cotton wool, but she changed her mind after going to university and seeing what other people of her age hadn't doneA lovely example of Mark Twain's "When I was 14 I thought my father was an idiot. When I was 21 I was surprised at how much he had learned in the past 7 years".

author: con-f-use
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 31, 2014, 12:00:13 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on October 31, 2014, 10:13:18 amSorry to read that, I understand your feelings and it's a special situation. But surely you wouldn't ban cars because a small minority of people don't drive safely. And you would speak against banning cars, if a politician was to ban cars because he was in an accident involving them. It's the old freedom vs. safety debate and I think you have to have a very good reason to regulate something. In our case it's more like banning a very specific type of engine that is only used in a couple of race cars because a hypothetical race driver has never used them outside of the tracks but just might, and then might run somebody over. I've become a bit allergic to fear-mongering.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2014, 05:17:48 pm
content: Quote from: con-f-use on October 31, 2014, 12:00:13 pmIt isn'tthatspecial: many people are deaf - both the absolute number and also the proportion is rapidly increasing.Analogies are dangerous and usually generate as much hot air as light. In this case, if someone was selling high-powered cars over the internet toanyonethat may or may not be sensible, then yes, I would have strong objections - as would most people.Including a leaflet saying "don't drive this car dangerously" would be completely insufficient.Please don't think that I am against freedom - I know 14 year olds that regularly accelerate 0-50mph in 4s and then travel at up to 150mph, on their own with no adult in the vicinity. My daughter was one of them. Yes, she could have died, but I madeverysure that she wouldn't hurt other people.She's also backpacked around India with me, and been helicoptered off a mountain. She still thought I'd wrapped her in cotton wool, until she realised what other people of her hage hadn't done!

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2014, 05:43:40 pm
content: Technically something like a high power laser cutter/engraver must have some enclosure (Optical blackout cardboard (its black cardboard) is even enough for university labs when your just trying to stop reflected light from harming nearby users) and to sell something without something as basic as that and make it look like any other 3d printer or cnc cutting machine may trick users into thinking the can use it as is.While we don't ban cars not even kit cars I don't think we have any problem with mandating by law things like seat belts, airbags, shatter resistant windshields, back up cameras, TMPS, ... Sure a DIY system doesn't need everything but at least the basics like a seat, seatbelt, brakes.The thing should at least include a black accordion tube type shroud like those CNC cutting wood engravers that allow you to connect a vacuum to suck up the shavings while it runs (wouldn't be perfect but it would at least provide the enclose the laser beam function in some sense).Laser safety glasses are not meant to substitute the very basics in laser safety design.