LED eye damage

When the light in question is laser light, 21 CFR 1040.10 has an answer for that one!

Maximum safe exposure for a point source of visible or IRA wavelength is

1 millijoule in 2500 seconds.

Maximum safe exposure for an area source translates to 63 joules emitted per square centimeter of emitting surface during time of viewing the emitting surface if the surface is an "ideal lambertian" emitting surface, (If I did not screw up the translation), even if divided into small segments and considering the worst of such segments small enough to be essentially unchanged by flattening if curved. Although the time period to consider there is 10,000 seconds.

And when considering which of the above 2 cases to consider if both are considerable, you are alowed to use whichever of these two gives the more favorable answer.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein
Loading thread data ...

21 CFR 1040.10 takes that into consideration - I believe I correctly teranslated this into 63 joules per square centimeter of an "ideal" "lambertian" light source surface for exposure period of 10,000 seconds as an eye exposure limit to neither exceed nor match. And if your eye exposure is less than 1 millijoule in any 2500 second period, you are OK. And if you violate one but not both of these, you are OK.

And if the light source is not a laser, then 21 CFR 1040.10 is not a law that you are legally required to follow, although I suspect your lawyer might advise it to be a guideline for CYA-ing with. (And 21 CFR 1040.10 is a USA thing - I do not guarantee any advice of mine good for so much as what you paid me to read it anywhere else!)

Up to a certain area that is small enough to be a point...

21 CFR 1040.10 makes me think that 21 CFR 1040.10 has a point source no worse than a source with surface area up to about 1/32 millisteradian, or roughly .31 square centimeter (or roughly .63 mm dianmeter circle) at 1 meter distance. This is for exposure time 1 to 2500 seconds - the equivalent safe source area varies proportionately with exposure time (within a 10,000 second periond) from 2500 to 10,000 seconds and then things level off with maximum safe exposure having point and area source exposure being equal at about 1/8 millisteradian of viewed surface.

If I screwed up here, someone please say how!

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

Another major factor is the size of the source. The smaller it is the more energy can be focussed by the eye into a given area.

Dirk

Reply to
Dirk Bruere

On Sun, 21 May 2006 23:24:07 GMT, dalai lamah wrote in Msg.

...which is the reason why your eyelid reflex will protect your eye from damage.

Really, I think a lot of "Don't look directly into this LED flashlight" crap is just marketing hype. Q: What is brighter than a super-bright flashlight? A: A dangerously bright flashlight.

robert

Reply to
Robert Latest

That would be true for point source radiating equally in all directions, no?

--

    Boris Mohar
Reply to
Boris Mohar

Power is not the issue, it's intensity (power / area). Less power covering proportionately less area gives the same intensity. Moving farther away just reduces the area of damage.

What you say is true only at a large enough distance so that the source is imaged to a diffraction-limited spot in your eye. The image area becomes constant, so reducing power by moving farther away does reduce the intensity. That's why it's safe to look at the stars, but not at our own sun.

Mark

Reply to
redbelly

The diffraction limit of our eyes puts a lower limit on how small an image can be. And it's a lot larger than an atom :-)

Mark

Reply to
redbelly

"This Light is Awesome! It Will Definitely Blind You! ? 3 Million Candlepower / As powerful as it gets!" ...

formatting link

Colin =^.^=

Reply to
colin

That's a perceptive question, and it has an answer.

Putting it more simply: Why isn't looking at Sirius or Regulus as harmful as looking at the Sun, merely to a smaller area of the retina?

The answer is that the lens of the eye isn't perfectly sharp. A sharp image of Sirius would indeed have the same surface brightness as an image of the Sun, but it would be submicroscopically small. The best that the lens of the eye can achieve is an image about 0.01 mm in radius, which is much bigger and therefore has much lower surface brightness.

Now, if we had a star 10 times as far away as the Sun, or maybe even 100 times as far away, it would be dangerous to look at. But the nearest stars other than the Sun are more than 60,000 times as far away, if my quick calculation is right.

Reply to
mc

Exactly. And the eye is usually a good bit worse than diffraction-limited.

Reply to
mc

I have heard people complaining when they look at my 45 watt LED setup. I try to warn them first.

greg

Reply to
zekor

Heym,Don,have you checked out the River Rock 0.5W white LED flashlights Target sells for $10,that run on two AAA cells? (7 hr claimed) They're pretty nice,IMO.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Reply to
Jim Yanik

Thats seems like a good combo and life. I was looking at all the Target lights at Xmas. I bought 3 or so brands. For myself I got a 1W Lumiled powered by 3 AAA. Only 2.5 hrs. Nice metal case, but I'm looking for a nice plastic non conducting case for working around electricity.

greg

Reply to
GregS

plastic non conducting

Just bought an Aurora for about $25, 1.5W, 2xC alkalines. Life about 10hrs. Totally excellent buy. It's very bright and the machined ally case is superb.

formatting link

Dirk

Reply to
Dirk Bruere

The damage that leds can cause to the eye is well recognised and is covered by IEC 825 / EN60825 and related. The word 'laser' in the title I suspect leads some to ignore 825 but it is directly concerned with leds - in fact it states that for the word LASER read LED throughout the text but the title has never been ammended.

Several (in fact a remarkaly high percetage) of the classII and above products I have happened across have had no obligatory labelling and warning leaving open the door to litigation and prosecution. There are legally enforceable regulations (in N. America, Europe etc) concerning the application of even quite low power leds in all products because of the problems of possible eye damage in the longer term.

Reply to
RHRRC

Once, at a trade show, some years ago, one of the exhibitors had a panel of Ultra-Bright LEDs that you could not only see from the other end of the auditorium, but when near it it was actually painful to look at, and I could feel the radiant heat from them on my skin.

I didn't spend much time looking at them, because it _hurt_.

Thanks, Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise

In article , mc wrote: [....]

This isn't really true. As the area gets smaller the power per unit area to cause damage increases.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge
Reply to
Ken Smith

..or any source once you get far away.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge
Reply to
Ken Smith

Are you saying that a collimated laser beam obeys the inverse square law? If the beam diameter does bot inc erase appreciably wit the distance why would the power drop off?

--

    Boris Mohar
Reply to
Boris Mohar

A collimated laser beam does not stay collimated forever. Once you're far enough away the beam will start expanding with distance (because of diffraction), and the intensity will obey the inverse square law.

How far away is "far enough away" depends on the wavelength and the starting beam diameter of the collimated beam, and is proportional to D^2 / lambda

Mark

Reply to
redbelly

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.