Can a high power (1W) laser permanently damage a traffic camera sensor?

Just curious as to whether someone shining a 1W laser (IR to Blue wavelength) into the lens of something like a speed camera would cause permanent damage to it.

Reply to
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Loading thread data ...

Probably not. It depends upon how much of the beam enters the lens. And other factors. the camera lens does focus the beam on the sensor which creates more energy density that can produce damage (same effect that creates laser damage in your eyes) but unlike your organic eyes the camera sensors are doubtless silicon which at minimum you'd have to melt or at least some of the metal overlay (aluminum or gold) to damage the sensor. Note that these metals reflect light which protects them from heating. So the usual method would be to use a much larger pulsed laser with lots of joules of energy in pulses that can actually melt the silicon. And even then it depends upon the structure of the electronics of the sensor whether it just takes out a tiny dot in the image or a horizontal or vertical stripe or both, or actually trashes the whole sensor. A 1 watt laser can pop balloons but they are organic.

You could probably do a better job with a loop of chain and pickup truck... even better elect a new mayor...

Reply to
benj

All the stories I've seen about how these are misused as revenue generators, I'm all for any method that stops it, short of murdering those responsible for the install and traffic light timing. but jail time is fine. Mikek

--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. 
http://www.avast.com
Reply to
amdx

Planning some mayhem?

Probably, if you shined it long enough -- just the heat concentrated in one spot on the focal plane array should do it.

--
Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

There you have it -- two conflicting answers. I was forgetting about beam divergence, so I think this one is more right than mine, unless you're standing on a stepladder and shining the thing into the camera point-blank.

--
Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

If there's a tramway you don't even need a pickup truck :-)

formatting link

But seriously, the best solution is just to drive at the correct speed, then you don't need to worry about speed cameras.

Reply to
Stefan Heimers

Reply to
Wond

A drone loaded with a little thermite >:-}

I caused the City of Phoenix some grief by timing yellow cycles of non-camera intersections versus those with red-light cameras, then posted the data to the editorial pages of every newspaper in town.

(Non-camera intersections averaged 1.5 seconds longer than those with cameras.) ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Vigilant citizens, like your example, is more effective in the long term.

Any sort of law enforcement method that generates revenue for the agency doing the enforcing is problematical, in my opinion.

--
Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

Yep. I've always opined that traffic fine revenue should only be used to fund safe driving schools.

One intersection I timed had a yellow cycle shorter than the safe stopping distance when your speed was exactly the posted limit... guaranteeing much revenue. Noticing the lawyers drooling, the city changed that one immediately ;-) ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Yep, I have read this about other cities also. I think it is criminal. Put them in jail, and hope they have a new unwanted sex life, for years! Just pisses my off, and I've never had a camera ticket. I think I even saw where the fines are split with the company that sets up the system. Mikek

--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. 
http://www.avast.com
Reply to
amdx

Never having thought that marijuana should be illegal, I've paid close attention to drug laws over the years. When the whole fashion of confiscating money "generated by drug profits" came along, there were a tremendous number of abuses.

Even when the moneys generated just went to the D.A.R.E program, you still had case after case of egregious prosecution. Basically, it got to the point where if you traveled anywhere with a sufficiently large bundle of cash, you were leaving yourself open not only to losing your freedom, but to having everything you owned confiscated.

--
Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

Actually I think the company gets more than the city.

This is heartening...

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

What do you mean "were"? You make it sound like the policy is over.

Rule: If there is a something valuable somewhere, it really ought to be stolen.

Reply to
benj

Not "think" but true. The deal is the company comes to the city, and offers to install the cameras at no cost to improve "traffic safety".

Then once in operation the company gets paid for the system out of the fines. So essentially the city gets to set up motorist bilking operations for free and no risk. While jerks blasting through red lights is a problem, the interesting thing is that studies show that intersections with cameras end up having MORE accidents than they did without the cameras as people brake to avoid tickets.

Of course there was a problem here that since the camera did not identify who was driving the vehicle the charges did not stand up in court. But with a little under the table money and the law was fixed so that now the car owner is responsible no matter who is driving the car.

Sweet.

Reply to
benj

2 watts

formatting link

Reply to
benj

Speed cameras are one thing. Red-light cameras are a completely different kettle. The problem with both isn't that they exist, rather that they're manipulated by the politicians as a source of revenue, rather than public safety. As are result, the public's perception of the law and authority in general, goes down the toilet. The 55MPH speed limit was the first step down that slope and I'm sure cameras aren't the end.

Reply to
krw

And the state contract for driving schools goes to the governor's brother or campaign manager.

That's not unusual.

Reply to
krw

non-camera intersections versus those with red-light cameras, then posted the data to the editorial pages of every newspaper in town. "

Cool !

Reply to
jurb6006

Cops have been setting speed traps long before speed cameras or the 55MPH speed limit came along.

Do get your history straight.

--
Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.