LED eye damage

At what point, given the rapidly increasing power of visible light output from LEDs, will the possibility of eye damage have to be taken seriously? I know that looking into my 1.5W LED torch it's at the point where a part of the retina will be washed out for minutes. And that's after the external lens which provides a fairly wide beam.

Dirk

Reply to
Dirk Bruere
Loading thread data ...

Some car headlamps seem particularly good at doing that ... eat more carrots !

I would gues it depends largly on the beam divergence and the stupidity of the viewer, with diverese beams of visible light the human reflex action is quite good at avoiding damage, but theres always someone wiling to stare into the beam ! of course with invisible laser light the risk is so much greater becuase you are unaware its doing damage untill its too late. however you can blind yourself if you stare at the sun. im not sure how much of this is due to infra red than visible light.

Colin =^.^=

Reply to
colin

However, at some point the light output is going to be a real hazard. What level? 10W LEDs? 100W?

Dirk

Reply to
Dirk Bruere

However, at some point the light output is going to be a real hazard. What level? 10W LEDs? 100W?

Dirk

Reply to
Dirk Bruere

I can give you a name to Google. Dr. B. Ralph Chou is the authority on eye damage from viewing solar eclipses. This is a closely related issue.

Reply to
mc

Un bel giorno Dirk Bruere digitò:

In theory, today's brighter LED could already damage the eye: the SiC LED from Cree have an optical power of 250 mW, and if you collimate the beam so that all the power enters the eye, you will have similar effects of a class IIIb LASER (definitive injury of the eye for medium-short exposures).

However, in normal situations you won't go over class I or class II. To make an example, let's use some optics so that the beam of our 250 mW LED will have a width of 30 degrees (e.g. a flashlight). If you consider a distance from the LED of 1 m and a pupil area of 10 mm^2, you will have a total beam area of 0.214 sr and a pupil area of 1e-5 sr. Therefore, the optical power that will enter into your eye would be 0.25*1e-5/0.214: less than 12 microwatt, i.e. like a class I LASER (totally harmless).

However, some time ago a Cree distributor showed me one of their LED in action, and before lighting it he warned me not to look directly at it. And he was right, these LED produce a light that you can't stand, even from several meters.

--
asd
Reply to
dalai lamah

I was rather thinking of children holding a high power LED torch and shining it in their eyes (that's what I did with mine). Distance is around 30cm max (more like half that for a child), and beam angle about

15deg at a guess. At that distance the eye would receive closer to 10mW input. Next year's superbright torch might multiply that by x10.

Dirk

Reply to
Dirk Bruere

Dirk Bruere wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com:

It also depends on how CLOSE the light source is,along with it's intensity,and particular wavelengths.(like UV.)

Light follows the inverse square law.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Yanik

I have seen a figure of 1kW per square meter for the intensity of sunlight at the equator on a clear day. This is 1mW/mm^2. That would mean 10mW total if the eye is 10mm^2. And, we know that sunlight has enough oomph to cause blindness. If you don't believe me, ask Euler.

Interesting topic.

Cheers, John

Reply to
John - KD5YI

Light does, but the eye has a lens in it and views a focused image. As a result, surface brightness is independent of distance. (If the light source is farther away, it covers a smaller area of the retina.) So it's a question of losing a lot of your retina or just a little...

Reply to
mc

"mc" wrote in news:4o8cg.41394$ snipped-for-privacy@bignews8.bellsouth.net:

Just because the image is focused does not mean the power delivered is the same.The lens of the eye is not magic.(no gain,either)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Yanik

Somehow I have the feeling these folks have investigated this:

formatting link

Reply to
JeffM

No, but I think you've missed my point.

Surface brightness is independent of distance.

What I mean by that is that the watts per unit area of the retina are independent of the distance of the light source. As the source gets farther away, the area of retina that it covers is what diminishes.

The risk of damage to any particular area of the retina depends on the wattage per area, not the total wattage.

Reply to
mc

So why don't we have billions of atom-sized pinholes in our retinas from looking at the night sky full of neutron stars and pulsars? ;-)

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
Reply to
Tim Williams

I tried some searching on this site.

I tried many searches with "led" in them, however I havn't found anything about eyes or intensity.

Any ideas about finding anything about eye damage ??

thanks

donald

Reply to
Donald

I would think that if the damage is due to heating, it would be more dangerous to have a larger area illuminated at the same level. For a smaller area, conduction to the surrounding tissue and blood circulation might be able to limit the maximum temperature reached.

-- john

Reply to
John O'Flaherty

Google didn't find anything deemed to be an eye-related problem either. That was my premise.

Reply to
JeffM

There is an alternative limit in terms of joules per square centimeter per steradian, which I have calculated (I hope correctly) equates to 63 joules per square centimeter of "lambertian" emitting surface during viewing period that could be 10,000 seconds for "Class I" exposure. And if I did not screw this up, surface emitting 63 joules per square centimeter (all or an adequately signidficant portion visible) in 1 to

9,999 seconds is short of Class IIIb even if total output power is over 5 mW.

I would suggest 10 degrees.

When pupil diameter is a factor with visible light, the regulation allows 7 mm pupil diameter or basically 40 mm^2 where it states relevance and where it applies.

21 CFR 1040.10

Although in practice a pupil will usually shrink to less than 10 mm^2, maybe as little as 3 mm^2 if you arev looking at "hazardously bright light".

Although this example is largely harmless, I do see the need to point out:

  1. The upper limit of "Class I" is .4 microwatt and non-inclusive (.4 microwatt is Class II while anything less and guaranteed less is Class I no matter how little below .4 microwatt).
  2. An LED flashlight even with a high power LED can achieve a beam area about an order of magnitude smaller - so make that 110-120 microwatts.
  3. If you need to CYA, then you need to consider a 40 square millimeter pupil, and you could then be up against .4-.5 milliwatt.

The "acid test worst case" is a really big dark-adapted pupil or a pupil dilated by the pupil-dilating eyedrops administered sometimes by ophthalmologists, and that is 10 mm diameter, or about 79 square millimeters. But where 21 CFR 1040.10 specifies a pupil diameter where pupil diameter is relevant, it says 7 mm diameter which is about 40 square millimeters.

When it comes to LEDs and LED flashlights, you may end up relying on power per unit area of emitting surface. For example, a more intense white "Luxeon" could emit .4 watt from a chip surface magnified to roughly (my eyeball estuimate) a 1.6 mm square, and that is roughly 16 watts per square centimeter - which means you hit maximum safe exposure in about 4 seconds if you are close enough for 1/4 milliwatt or more to pass through your pupil. This is about 1/4 the upper limit of Class II.

I hear enough cautions and warnings related to looking into enough LEDs... I would consider in general high brightness LEDs to be equivalent to Class II lasers, and laser class II is a wide range of 2500 to 1.

At least 21 CFR 1040.10 and .11 do not have legal regulatory force on LEDs, incandescent lamps, halogen lamps, other non-laser light sources... Although I suspect your lawyer if competant in such area might advise to use that as a guideline for non-laser light sources.

NOTE - I am talking about visible light here. IR and UV gets worse, notably for at least some instances of Class II being changed to Class IIIb if the wavelength changes from an "officially visible" one to an "officially infrared" one. At least that does not apply to white or other high visible brightness LEDs!

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

Reply to
Don Klipstein

But then again, consider non-LED flashlights!

A plain old ordinary dirt-cheap R-2 flashlight "lamp" ("bulb") consumes about a watt, and I would hazard to guess that about 40% of that gets radiated in "optical band" wavelengths (UVA, visible, and IRA - mostly IRA). And maybe about half that gets received and reflected by the reflector and gets out as the "main beam" - meaning somewhere around roughly .2 watt! "1-watt" "Luxeon" LEDs are hard-pressed to do that!

Let alone a "MAG" or other premium flashlight with 3, 4, or 5 cells and/or a premium "bulb" (lamp) with krypton or xenon and/or halogen enhancement - you could get half a watt or more of "optical band" radiation, difficult to exceed with 2.5 watts into a "Luxeon" LED!

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

Reply to
Don Klipstein

In , Jim Yanik said in part:

UV and IR are not significant problems with white LEDs. White LEDs are pretty good at specializing in production of visible light.

Same is true of higher brightness (in photometric terms) non-white LEDs of just about any color - red, orange, yellow, green, blue, pink, pastel, "warm white", "coral", and "purple" (as opposed to violet - there is a difference, although I know of some Japanese ones said to be "purple" to actually be violet-UV).

Now for what other "electric lamps" do in terms of having "optical band" output being specialized to visible wavelengths: Fluorescent lamps and HID lamps of kinds intended for illumination do that fairly impressively well, while incandescent lamps (including halogen lamps) do not due to producing lots of "IRA band" infrared.

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

Reply to
Don Klipstein

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.