Don’t Die of Ignorance from LED’s & Your Smart Devices
Our recent warning over 5G, LED and electromagnetism dangers is causing a real stir! Joining us again on our weekly TNT Radio show (March 12, 2022) was Dr. Nisa Khan, an eminent international expert in this field of engineering to share the facts the mainstream media won’t report.
Holder of 10 US scientific patents, a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and appearing in Who’s Who listed as a world authority in this field, Dr Khan has been sounding a warning for several years over the wholesale commercial applications of electromagnetic radiation in our smartphones, Internet of Things (IOT), Wi-Fi, LED lights and related systems.
Like us at Principia Scientific International (PSI), Dr Khan understands that it is NOT ‘the virus’ or ‘Russian tyrants’ that are the real threats to our wellbeing. As a world-leading authority on LED lighting technology, she has the intellectual rigor to see beyond the media smoke screen and perceives a far more insidious evil.
In her previous interview, Dr. Khan drew stark parallels with the tobacco industry’s promotion of heavy smoking. As with the cigarette addiction of previous generations, so with our modern smartphone cravings – the slow, insidious and very real cancer impacts are long-term and mostly invisible.
A total lack of regulatory remedial action or any media concern about this growing and often invisible threat to our health has prompted Dr Khan to team up with PSI to help spread the truth among our 12 million monthly followers.
So well received was Dr. Khan’s appearance on our TNT Radio’s weekly broadcast March 16, 2022, that we urged her to return for a follow-up discussion. The podcast is available for you to listen to for free at tntradio.live.
Dr Khan’s insight, as a pioneer in understanding the nature and practicalities of electromagnetic radiation is second to none. Despite a rewarding career in the LED field of technology, she issues a stark warning of its growing dangers. Speaking to Texan Engineer, Joe Olson, Canadian space scientist, Joe Postma and your truly, Dr Khan warned:
“So, when there is so much evidence against RF radiation and has been for a century, what could be the purpose now for increasing electromagnetic radiation everywhere?”
Her conscience pricked by the ramifications of the impending and unvetted mass 5G rollout, Dr Khan feels a strong moral compunction to blow the whistle on a risk to human health so great it puts the threat of COVID and Putin in the shade.
I asked this eminent expert; can it really be that bad?
“Yes, governments and Big Tech are completely ignoring the health risks of near field radiation pattern and intensity in space. The safety protocols are useless because they rely on what we call a far-field approximation, as if we are using our cell phones not in our house but in the neighbors backyard!” lamented Dr Khan.
Globally, scientific, technical, and standard communities are all behind adopting 5G and massive connectivity, but all the while we are supposed to save energy and resources?
“There is a good deal of evidence that intense EMR/EMF [electro-magnetic radiation] causes flu and dizziness for many people and yet FCC, IEEE, and ICNIRP are increasing the limit for RF [radio frequency] exposure; still their limits are based on erroneous science around RF beams that are generated from cell phone and base station antennas.”
In our interview, Dr Khan referred to another RF expert, a former employee of Hewlett Packard that helped make and evaluate most of the very high-frequency RF measurement equipment from years back and who thought that cell phone RF radiation for 1G or 2G phones was already too much.
source of image: www.defendershield.com
“He thought that even back then, 20 years ago, so dangerous was the risk from cell phones that he would not have one near his head or left in his pockets. He understood that such radiation could give him brain cancer and or make him infertile – so, what could today’s 4G and 5G radiation do to us?”
That was in 2001, when Dr Khan worked with venture-backed high-end optical and RF transceivers. To emphasise her point about this insidious, mostly invisible danger, Dr Khan used an example everyone can readily see: LED car headlights and laser pointer pens. Laser pointer pens carry danger/hazard signs – but not many LED lights do. Dr Khan went on to make several points:
“Laser pointer pens have radiation power on the order of a few milliwatts – the same as the tiny lasers. I used my PhD thesis work around making optical devices such as very small waveguides and high-speed waveguide devices. There are essential warning labels on devices about these commercial lasers that clearly tell users to not look into them or shoot them into others’ eyes! I always follow these instructions very carefully – I understand the risks. Most untrained people do not.”
But now, every day, virtually all of us look at LED headlights from one car after another for seconds and sometimes minutes every day!
We asked Dr Khan, what are the optical radiation powers from these headlights that we encounter? She replied:
“These are at least 1000 Watts that come directly to our eyes in a typical circumstance of someone driving on the road when we are within certain angular or directivity zone in which the LED headlights emit most of their light! That is an increase of optical radiation power of 1,000,000-fold or 6 orders of magnitude from the case of a flash of laser pointer pen in our eyes.”
Dr Khan made the point that she would rather have these little laser pointer pens directed into her eyes over these LED headlights any day. To reinforce the point, she asked prominent optical scientists about her concerns, and they agreed with her.
In measured yet impassioned tone, Dr Khan added:
“Consider commercial LED flashlights – they carry a warning sign to not look into the beam from the flashlight because it is enormously intense. These LED flashlights produce far less total radiation wattage as well as radiation density or intensity measured in Watt per meter squared compared to most LED headlights in today’s cars. Again, orders of magnitude less and not a single LED headlight has any warning signs on them, and people are forced to look at these lights every day because regulators allowed them to be installed in all cars!”
As we are beginning to see from the way ‘vaccines’ were rushed out during the pandemic, profit too often is put above safety. Some of the identified biological effects and associated health patterns from regular exposure to such radiation includes heat damage, oxidative stress, DNA damage, fertility problems, sleep disorder, VGCC Activation, Leukemia and other cancers [1]
Dr. Khan explained how her conscience drew her more towards addressing safety. She explained to TNT radio listeners about how LED-based lamps would more appropriately and safely be manufactured if her patents were applied.
“Without applying the requirements set out in such patents, LEDs will remain directional and will never produce the beautiful glow that incandescent lamps generate.”
Asked why this isn’t being done by her or others, she clarified that only she can design the necessary waveguides for appropriate light diffusion from LED chips; and that such a design might end up costing a great deal while using up material resources like semiconductors and others that are already becoming overused and have become rare.
But she added that the most important thing she could offer to the wireless and LED lighting industries is “education, education, and education.”
“The lack of proper education and training has led to inaccurate measurements and claims that are confusing and harming people today.”
While not many people are instantly dying or getting sick from these gadgets, slow deaths and debilitation are sure to follow because such intense radiation from these gadgets accumulate in our bodies over time, breaking down cellular fidelities that we rely on for living.
But there was room for some levity in our broadcast. Dr. Khan shared a funny story around the LASER acronym in the show. She spoke of her fond memories of working with Professor Robert J. Collins, who, in 1987, challenged her to find the answer as to why a laser produces a pencil beam. At that time she was a graduate student in electrical engineering.
In 1960, Professor Collins along with his co-workers at Bell Labs made the first laser that produced a pencil beam and yet Theodore Maiman received the credit for building the first laser.
This credit is valid if laser is literally what the acronym says, namely Light Amplification Stimulated Emission Radiation because Maiman indeed built the first optical amplifier in a solid-state material, namely ruby. However, even back then and today, laser is meant to be differentiated from an optical amplifier in that the device must pass a threshold to achieve optical oscillation known as ‘relaxation oscillation’ at which point a pencil beam starts to form.
Dr Khan continued:
“Arthur Schawlow, who along with Charles Townes, established the maser-laser theory, jokingly made a comment at a conference that LASER should really be called a LOSER because it was far more relevant for such a device to achieve oscillation and not just amplification. Nowadays, everyone knows that a laser is really a LOSER but not necessarily a loser!”
Before the show’s end, Dr. Khan expressed how humbled she was by finally being able to discern why a laser produces a pencil beam. No other scientist had ever accurately fathomed this out.
“Professor Collins is the only person I know who wasn’t satisfied with the erroneous answers many notable optical scientists provided for decades and he was right to not fall for the guesses that were inconsistent!”
It had taken more than 20 years, but she had the answer to the question originally put to her by her university mentor, Professor Collins [ web link for Professor R. J. Collins’ paper on Bell Labs and the ruby laser: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.3293412].
About Dr M. Nisa Khan
M. Nisa Khan is the author of, “Understanding LED Illumination” (CRC Press, 2013) – a widely used university textbook around the world in the field of laser and LED engineering and solid-state lighting. She received the B.A. in physics and mathematics from Macalester College in 1986 and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in 1988 and 1992 respectively. During her studies, she worked as a research associate for 9 years at Honeywell Solid State Research Center in Bloomington, Minnesota. After completing her doctorate, she became a member of the technical staff at AT&T Bell Laboratories (now Nokia Bell Labs) in Holmdel, New Jersey, and spent most of her 6 years at the Photonics Research Laboratory at Bell Labs-Crawford Hill conducting pioneering work on 40-Gb/s optoelectronic and integrated photonic devices. Dr. Khan then worked on optical communication subsystems at several other companies, including her own venture-backed companies in New Jersey. In 2006, she started an independent research and engineering company, IEM LED Lighting Technologies, and has since been involved in innovation and technology development for making solid-state lighting more suitable for general lighting. She has written over 40 peer-reviewed research articles in IEEE, OSA, and AIP journals, presented numerous invited and contributed papers at OSA, IEEE, and APS conferences, notable international conferences in Europe and China, and has 10 U.S. granted patents as either first or sole author. Dr. Khan performed many feasibility field studies for LED display and signage industries and wrote over 50 LED column articles from 2007 to 2016 in Signs of the Times magazine, which has been serving the electric sign illumination industry since 1906. Dr. Khan’s original scientific contributions can be found in ResearchGate.net that highlight her discovery of why semiconductor lasers, LEDs, and RF antennas produce directional beams and she is the first to derive the closed-form, analytic equation for near-field electromagnetic radiation distribution from finite, flat radiation sources. This derivation along with the theory of Fourier Optics prove that LEDs, lasers, and flat RF antennas and their arrays are NOT point radiation sources no matter how far the observer is from a flat radiation source. This discovery is very notable and she explains with her new theory why high- power and high-brightness LED-based lamps – used for example as car headlamps – have tremendous glare that propagate directly into viewers’ eyes when their field of view substantially overlaps with the center optical axes of the headlight beams. Her discoveries have been validated by experiments and finite simulations many times over and stand as the only work that can help the auto headlamp industry upgrade their photometric standards for non-point sources that produce non-uniform luminance and radiance – and adopt appropriate measurement techniques that would disqualify all current LED headlamps for having too great a luminous intensity along the optical axes of both high and low beams. Similarly, her work suggests that current 4G and 5G wireless signals generate dangerous levels of electromagnetic radiation for cell phone users and for residents who live nearby antenna base stations. Source: bionicair.com
Dr Khan’s website address: www.iem-led.com
Listen to more interviews on topical science and technology stories by Principia Scientific International’s senior team at tntradio.live
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
JaKo
| #
Hi guys (the PSI’s editorial staff),
I do very much appreciate the added transcript!
While I agree with most of the radiation safety concerns, the danger of LED vehicle headlights may have been overstated. Consider the following:
https://www.surgitel.com/is-your-led-headlight-type-safe-for-your-eyes
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/about-our-tests#headlight-evaluation
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
Thank you for your comment. Since I am very busy, my comment below will serve as replies to all other comments here. Those who still feel like you need to understand further will have to wait until PSI brings you video lectures from me in the future – for which university credits maybe provided as well. These will be paid content as we have to incur a good deal of expenses for generating these and these will provide better education that any university lectures currently available.
The two links contain a great deal of erroneous information and these are very common for professionals that belong to CIE, NHTSA, IES, Optica, IEEE, APS and just about all other academic, scientific, technical and standard organizations. I have been fighting all such orgs for nearly a decade now and you can find my work here:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/M-Khan-36
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Why-Inorganic-LEDs-have-Inherent-Glare-and-Extremely-High-Luminance
https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-LED-Illumination-Nisa-Khan-ebook/dp/B00I60M8X8
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8879542
https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/khan-paper.pdf
In these peer-reviewed as well as better than peer-reviewed publications (there are no peers for my work on LED and wireless near-field photometry and radiometry), you will note that LEDs, lasers, and flat wireless antennas generate beams with non-uniform power density in space and power density at the center of the radiators, be it optical or RF, is enormously larger than what they are off center. This is the basic characteristic of a laser, LED or directive antenna beam. Halogen, HID, and other lamps do not have these characteristics, even after lenses are used like in headlamps.
More explanations are provided in the next replies.
Reply
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
In order to understand why at least a 1000W worth of radiant power is easily absorbed by a typical driver on a daily basis when they encounter cars with LED headlights, one must have the following background in technical fields:
Electronics and optoelectronics – response time for light generation from LED chip devices. This is typically about microseconds. So in one second, 1 watt of radiant power generated by an LED chip, aggregates to 1 million watts of radiant power absorbed by our body and eyes depending on how much of this radiant power is incident on our body parts. Power adds in time and space. And we need to do the proper calculus to determine just how much wattage is incident on us when we look at an LED light from typical distances and for how long. But even with crude under-approximation, my number of 1000W is nothing compared to what we are experiencing typically. Note that the speed of light is so fast that we can consider instantaneous eye detection of light coming to our eyes from car headlights.
While lumens are what we see, it is the radiant power expressed in wattage that is absorbed by our body parts whether our eyes sense them or not. Having said that, LEDs generate typically 5 to 7 times more lumens within white light spectrum compared to halogen or incandescent counterparts for each electrical watt used to generate light. So this too is more bothersome for LEDs when even lumen power is considered.
Radiant power reaching our eyes are far more in the case of an LED headlamp compared to a halogen or an HID headlamp because of power concentration in space in a high or low beam is FAR more for an LED headlamp. I can do the calculus to determine how much more it is for an LED headlamp vs. a halogen or HID headlamp. This is where the industry is clueless unfortunately. Further, the measurements everyone is doing are incorrect because they simply don’t have the detectors in the right places and the detectors at distances don’t work well for LEDs as they end up erroneously aggregating the power in space without accounting for the highly non-uniform spatial power density in LED headlights. For the case of LEDs, near field measurement must be done accurately and then these need to be extended to typical distances that exist between our eyes and LED headlights.
More explanations provided in the next reply.
Reply
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
Continued from my previous reply:
Not all the electrical power that goes into an LED or a laser converts to radiant power. Typically the power conversion efficiency is about 20%; it can be much higher. But I’ll assume that to be the case for my general goal of underestimation of my nominal number of “at least 1000W”!
So if you take the 20% conversion efficiency, 10% overlap of the radiant power from an LED headlamp over your eye when you look at an LED headlight from 2 meters away within a 30% solid angle zone, for a sec – what is the total radiant power your eye absorbed? Given the numbers I provided above, let me just say, “You do the math!”
Finally, I haven’t even talked about how our brain processes intense LED light that is hugely non-uniform in space and time and this is the part that gives many people migraines, epilepsy, temporary blindness and dizziness, and other abnormal feelings. Sound familiar!
Ask yourself, math or not, better light detection or not, color-temperature or not – do LED headlights bother you more than halogen headlights? Behind this is the reason that LED headlight peak luminance is much more than 1 million nits where as a halogen headlight peak luminance is around 40,000 nits! I have data on this more than most people do. Like man-made detectors, human eye detectors also vary and some people’s eyes are simply saturated and they don’t see light level beyond a certain amount. For them, tolerating LED headlights is much easier. However, my studies show that about 20% of the population simply cannot take LED headlights at all; another 50% put up with it; and about 30% likely aren’t bothered by it much.
For the actual wattage used in a typical LED headlight, look here:
https://www.amazon.com/Fahren-Headlight-Headlights-Conversion-Waterproof/dp/B07NPMV1H5/ref=sr_1_11?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9bGl3brT9gIVD-DICh2jYg7GEAAYAiAAEgLDVfD_BwE&hvadid=583842092093&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9003676&hvnetw=s&hvqmt=e&hvrand=11966814815853993934&hvtargid=kwd-309776652137&hydadcr=7496_9586299&keywords=halogen+headlight+bulb&qid=1647737048&sr=8-11
Mind you, the trucks used more powerful LED lights!
I’ll end here and wish you all well. – Dr. Nisa Khan
Reply
Howdy
| #
Headlights: “These are at least 1000 Watts”
Even 100 Watt bulbs are illegal in the UK, and taking that LEDs can, dependent on a great many factors, produce more light for the same input, or equal output for less power input, where is the 1000 figure from?
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Again, orders of magnitude less and not a single LED headlight has any warning signs on them, and people are forced to look at these lights every day because regulators allowed them to be installed in all cars!”
This is why vehicles are supposed to be driven on dipped beam setting, which has a sharp horizontal cut-off, precisely to avoid glare.
Manufacturers took it on themselves to include user-managed beam angle controls, and this makes It possible to raise the beam to get a longer throw of light. That’s not a problem until the vehicle becomes loaded and the angle of the dipped beam moves up even more. How many change the setting, but remember to put it back dependent on load? LEDs can’t be blamed for user abuse.
I can observe an anti-aircraft arc lamp without damage as long as I’m not in the focused beam. Headlights are the same.
https://www.hella.com/techworld/uk/Technical/Automotive-lighting/LED-headlights-833/
What about HID headlamps? For my money these are the most piercing, and still far brighter than standard Halogen. Where do they figure?
“Dr. Khan expressed how humbled she was by finally being able to discern why a laser produces a pencil beam. No other scientist had ever accurately fathomed this out.”
A long and technical read: https://www.photonics.com/Articles/Lasers_Understanding_the_Basics/a25161
“Dr Khan made the point that she would rather have these little laser pointer pens directed to her eyes over these LED headlights any day”
That’s a jest, surely?
“The damage can go unnoticed for a long period of time because it is painless. If shone directly into the eye, a laser pointer can cause instantaneous injury. Sometimes, the damage can resolve over time but there are many instances when the damage is irreversible and permanent.”
https://eyedoctorsite.com/blog/can-laser-pointers-cause-blindness/
Don’t go blind because of Ignorance?
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hi Howdy:
How would a 12 volt alternator system on a car run 1000 watt (volts X amps =watts) lights? I think most of the light actually comes fro the reflectors anyway.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hi Mark,
I’m waiting to hear about the 1Kilowatt because the figure is in reference to ‘optical radiation power’ what ever that means, as stated by the article. This is confusing since the article was, I thought, about electromagnetic radiation.
Were it actually 1000 watts of consumption, It would be 74 Amps at 13.5 Volts (nominal) output current. Accounting for lamp efficiency also, 1000 watts of actual output, which the article appears to state, would move the figure up greatly. That requires suitably stout cables.
This is easily attainable from an alternator, but the current rating would need to be well in excess of normal just to use the headlights since you never run alternators at the max for long periods. They are not designed for that, then more for charging, other lights, and ancillary device use that is required also. A drop in fuel economy would occur during night driving. It happens anyway, but in this scenario would be much greater.
Reply
Josh
| #
Do you perhaps think that they mean lumens relative to other light bulbs where led is a lot stronger per watt
Reply
Howdy
| #
Can’t see how, Josh. try this calculator and see what you think: https://www.rapidtables.com/calc/light/watt-to-lumen-calculator.html
It is surprisingly difficult to find set in stone figures for headlamp output.
In US, 2513 Lumens per lamp appears to be the figure, so using 2 is 5026. 1000 watts of LEDs is 90000 Lumens, which easily breaks the law. Indeed, retrofitting LEDs is a legal minefield.
I did find a document about federal light standards, but it’s a bit dated. It gives output in Candela: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0198.htm
Lumen to Candela calc: https://www.rapidtables.com/calc/light/lumen-to-candela-calculator.html
Reply
Dr, Nisa Khan
| #
Will be answering all of your questions tomorrow during normal business hours in the US.
Reply
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
To all the readers and commentators, I would like share a poem with you by a friend of mine, Alan Rayner, who has figured out how Gauss’ Law of Electromagnetics works in biology, by his new theory known as “Natural Inclusion”. Here it is:
By Alan Rayner
Replication
Why it’s never kind to be cruel and punishment IS a crime
As sure as night is night
And day is day
Like DNA
We children learn to replicate
What we hear, feel and see
Our peers and elders say and do
And in this way repeat
What is said and done to us
In what we say and do to other and others
Whether we like it or them or not
Until and unless
Some awakening experience
Leads us to question its wisdom
And change course
Reply
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
Thank you again for those who commented. After I have added more information for you based on your comments, I thought it would be best to add a bit more to my quote for clarification. We at PSI will make that change. Please read that “1000W” related quote again.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hello Dr Khan,
I’ll raise some points then I’m done. I found your answers completely unsatisfactory.
“Please read that “1000W” related quote again.”
The article still reads:
We asked Dr Khan, what are the optical radiation powers from these headlights that we encounter? She replied:
“These are at least 1000 Watts that come directly to our eyes when we are within certain angular or directivity zone in which the LED headlights emit most of their light! "
While your later comment is now: “at least a 1000W worth of radiant power is easily absorbed by a typical driver on a daily basis”
Not even similar, and I fail to see how such a figure can possibly be quantified due to innumerous variables, not least because dipped beam is in use and one only receives incident light. As a pedestrian, I’m affected even less due to the increased angle.
When you look at an LED headlight from 2 meters away”
Your comment is not applicable to the situation encountered by drivers on a daily basis.
“do LED headlights bother you more than halogen headlights”
No, I prefer them. HID is the demon as I stated previously.
“For the actual wattage used in a typical LED headlight, look here:”
Standard Halogen are 60 Watt. I don’t need a technical background to know the lamp you showed is an illegal retrofit. The wattage matters not, since at 300% brighter light, the device is none-compliant to UK vehicles, and I would guess, USA too. If that type of lamp is what you target, then you should be aware it is not type approved for use in a Halogen equipped vehicle under any circumstances (UK), If it is fitted, though illegal, the headlight beam must be reset. It is an MOT failure. This is not what you will find in a vehicle manufacturers headlight.
HID MUST be used with self leveling beam adjustment, yet the aftermarket is flooded with them, and shoved into any headlamp. It doesn’t help that the people fitting them have not realized the lamp is meant to go in a particular orientation and the beam ends up aiming anywhere but on the road. That isn’t the vehicle manufacturers problem.
Perhaps you are targeting the wrong people.
Reply
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
Unfortunately you fall back on treating LED light beam the same as lensed halogen beam or lensed HID beam. You will need to read the references I provided that explain why and LED beam is more intense in space and how quickly more watts aggregate on our eyes even over a second. As I said, watts add over time and space differently for an LED beam for an LED headlight. Finally the reason you prefer an yellowish LED headlight over a bluish HID headlight is because your eye doesn’t see yellow very well. A well known fact among the best lighting scientist. That is why I differentiated lumens absorbed compared to radiant power absorbed by the eye and even by our other parts of the body. I am also done here as I have much to do. Trust me – I have been at this for a very long time constantly fighting against misinformation and inabilities that exist even among many scientists.
Reply
Howdy
| #
LED light radiation, whatever else It can do, can not go beyond a barrier that prevents illumination from reaching an object, such as a dipped element beam cutoff. Exactly the same as any other lamp. If the radiation can’t reach me, I don’t get affected by It. Unless you are saying LED radiation can penetrate metal.
“Finally the reason you prefer an yellowish LED headlight over a bluish HID headlight is because your eye doesn’t see yellow very well”
What? Absolute nonsense and pure assumption! I see yellow from LED torches just fine thank you. I prefer LED for the colour rendition, why else.
No amount of support from ‘scientists’ will make your statement an actual fact either, because you have no idea of my eye condition, or my colour preference.
Thank you for the interesting time Dr Khan, but I’ll take my leave here, permanently.
Reply
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
The reason a human eye doesn’t see yellow very well has to do with the sensitivity determined by RGB receptors. I didn’t say we don’t see yellow. I said we don’t see yellow very well in the sense that for the amount of radiant power in yellow portion of the spectrum, your eyes don’t feel very’ ‘punched’ when it comes to yellow versus green, red. or blue. The amount of radiant watt falling on anything including a human body MUST be determined from using calculus on LED-specific beam and not from your assumption of illumination. Mind you, I am challenging any person in public to dispute what I am saying and this includes Oxford/MIT/Harvard/other professors or any other. They know me and it is their choice. This will be my last post here.
Howdy
| #
I know I said I was going, but this discrepancy must be addressed.
“I didn’t say we don’t see yellow. I said we don’t see yellow very well”
You did not. You stated:
“Finally the reason you prefer an yellowish LED headlight over a bluish HID headlight is because your eye doesn’t see yellow very well”
You made an observation of my sight and colour preference that you could not corroborate. In the world of Science, that is meaningless. It cannot stand if ‘science’ is of any value at all.
Dr Khan, please understand, I mean you no injustice, but a truth needed to be aired and I brought it out.
I truly wish you every success. Look after yourself. x
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
To all the readers and commentators:
If you disagree with anything I said here and would like to challenge me in public, please do the following:
Reveal your full name and affiliation.
Bring yourself and any other expert on the subject to a public debate against me.
In the public debate, I would like the best Bell Labs optical and RF scientists and engineers present. Further, I would like the best math professors who understand analytic functions and Fourier Transforms and Fourier Optics fully. These need not be anybody I know or have worked with in the past. I’ll ask you what you measure when you measure power from a flat radiative source and what that number means. I’ll ask you what you know about near-field photometry and radiometry. I’ll ask you what you know about visible, invisible, and not-so-visible optical radiation and what determines their visibility function for the human eye. I’ll ask you why a laser produces a pencil beam at the surface as shown in Figure 1 in the article written by Donald Nelson, R. J. Collins, and Wolfgang Kaiser. This article is referenced by the author of this article here. Please come prepared.
If no one is taking me up on this offer of such a public debate, please refrain from any further insulting remarks after all the information I have given here. I wish you all a great journey in your lives.
Sincerely,
Dr. Nisa Khan
Reply
Dr. Nisa Khan
| #
The commentator Howdy disappeared with his or her final note:
“Howdy
March 20, 2022 at 6:34 pm | #
I know I said I was going, but this discrepancy must be addressed.
“I didn’t say we don’t see yellow. I said we don’t see yellow very well”
You did not. You stated:
“Finally the reason you prefer an yellowish LED headlight over a bluish HID headlight is because your eye doesn’t see yellow very well”
You made an observation of my sight and colour preference that you could not corroborate. In the world of Science, that is meaningless. It cannot stand if ‘science’ is of any value at all.
Dr Khan, please understand, I mean you no injustice, but a truth needed to be aired and I brought it out.
I truly wish you every success. Look after yourself. x”
I too wish Howdy every success. For other readers, when I used the pronouns “your, you, yours, etc.” it obviously wasn’t meant for Howdy only. These pronouns are for a general person. I think most readers get that. If not, it is my mistake.
Reply