Value chain · CLM-1112
In plain terms
The paper says this colour of infrared is good because the air lets it through and the eye-safety rules allow more of it, but it cites other papers for both and never gives a number for either.
The claim as recorded
The paper's case for the 1.3-1.6 um band is stated in one sentence and by citation: the near-infrared telecommunication bands are "particularly attractive" for combined power-and-data links "due to low atmospheric absorption" (cited to a 1993 atmospheric light absorption review), "higher permissible power under eye-safety regulations" (cited to a 2022 laser safety tutorial) and "minimal fiber attenuation"; the conclusion repeats it as "exhibiting lowest atmospheric attenuation and meeting eye-safety limitations". No exposure limit, maximum permissible exposure or atmospheric transmittance figure is given anywhere in the paper; the only eye-safety quantity is the 0.1 W/cm2 received irradiance of its 3 m link, described as eye-safe.
Evidence behind this: T1-a peer-reviewed paper's own stated rationale, each element cited to another document; no limit value is stated on the page.
Scope and limits
A statement of what the paper claims and cites, not of what the exposure standards say; neither cited document is held, and the register holds no laser exposure standard. "Eye-safe" at 0.1 W/cm2 (1 kW/m2) at 1530 nm is the authors' description of their link; whether that irradiance is within any standard's limit at that wavelength is not established here. The comparison with the microwave public reference level (10 W/m2, CLM-0008) is not like for like: the two standards are built on different biological endpoints.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
p.1, the sentence in three probed pieces: depunctuated (the page's hyphens are non-breaking) "the near-infrared (IR) telecommunication bands" ... "are particularly attractive for SLIPT systems due to low atmospheric absorption" (reference 15 superscripted), depunctuated "higher permissible power under eye-safety regulations" (reference 16), and "and minimal" "attenuation" around the word fiber, which the layer carries as a ligature (reference 17). p.2, depunctuated: "a high-speed 1530 nm laser was chosen for the setup of a 3 m, eye-safe free-space optical (FSO) link". p.7 Table 1 title, raw: "Key FSO link measured parameters at 1.53" um "and 0.1 W/cm2 received optical power at the PPC". p.8, normalised: "exhibiting lowest atmospheric attenuation and meeting eye-safety limitations". p.12: "15. Horvath, H. Atmospheric light absorption-a review. Atmos. Environ. Part A. Gen. Top. 27, 293-317 (1993)"; "16. Dehghani Soltani, M. et al. Safety analysis for laser-based optical wireless communications: a tutorial. Proc. IEEE 110, 1045-1072 (2022)". Absence: \bMPE\b|maximum permissible|IEC 60825|ANSI Z136|[Cc]lass 1\b probed case-sensitively over all 14 page texts, none. Related records
- Answers question
- QST-002 not published in this releaseQST-036 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1112
CLM-1112, Energy Aperture, as of 2026.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-586
- CLM-1110The best near-infrared laser-to-electricity receiver so far turns 56 per cent of the light into electricity, but only when the light is 271...CLM-1111Before this paper, the best near-infrared laser receivers reached about half efficiency, and only under very bright light; at gentler light...CLM-1113This paper does not describe a laser power satellite, though two NASA-funded designs for one exist from 1978-80. It does show how a laser...