Return to Answer

A larger eye is indeed easier to target with something like a bullet, but if your objective is to withstand optical attacks intended to blind you, then a large detection area for a given field of view (i.e. a given amount of captured incident light), that would result in a lower incident power density over the detector area and thus allow you to better withstand such attacks.

Now, such a design would result in a larger mechanism but the mechanism would not necessarily need to outwardly look larger since while the internal detector is large, the external light collecting element (i.e. lens) could be small.

You could add an iris and zoom mechanism to allow the large detector to be adjust for sensitivity/ruggedness and field of view as desired. That would make it outwardly large.

But another way it could be outwardly large is to use the same large detector with many smaller lenses resulting in a compound eye of sorts. If the small lenses were optically multiplexed to the large detector, and each lens had a small field of view pointed at a unique angle, you would have a system that is rugged to optical attacks with telescopic vision simultaneously with a large field of view due to the stitched image from each small lens.

Since the detector is scanning through the lenses and only looking through one lens at a time, to blind it you would have to pump a lot of power through one particular lens. But since the detector effectively blinking between all the lenses, it would also have some protection similar to the blink response and it could just not return to scan a lens that was lit up too much for sometime. That way, you could not only withstand blinding attacks but you can see around them as well (seeing with your left eye while someone stabs you in the right eye so to speak, just don't look straight at them). Or you could light up the specific lenses that the detector scans consecutively and heats up too much with no chance to cool but that is tough to achieve if the detector is scanning lenses pointed in opposite directions one after another.

What's the catch? You give up "frame-rate" since you are scanning lenses. But if the scan rate and detector is much faster than your own eyes (or reaction times or enemy reaction times) then you will not notice the difference.

A larger eye is indeed easier to target with something like a bullet, but if your objective is to withstand optical attacks intended to blind you, then a large detection area for a given field of view (i.e. a given amount of captured incident light), that would result in a lower incident power density over the detector area and thus allow you to better withstand such attacks.

Now, such a design would result in a larger mechanism but the mechanism would not necessarily need to outwardly look larger since while the internal detector is large, the external light collecting element (i.e. lens) could be small.

You could add an iris and zoom mechanism to allow the large detector to be adjust for sensitivity/ruggedness and field of view as desired. That would make it outwardly large.

But another way it could be outwardly large is to use the same large detector with many smaller lenses resulting in a compound eye of sorts. If the small lenses were optically multiplexed to the large detector, and each lens had a small field of view pointed at a unique angle, you would have a system that is rugged to optical attacks with telescopic vision simultaneously with a large field of view due to the stitched image from each small lens.

Since the detector is scanning through the lenses and only looking through one lens at a time, to blind it you would have to pump a lot of power through one particular lens. But since the detector effectively blinking between all the lenses, it would also have some protection similar to the blink response and it could just not return to scan a lens that was lit up too much for sometime. That way, you could not only withstand blinding attacks but you can see around them as well (seeing with your left eye while someone stabs you in the right eye so to speak, just don't look straight at them). Or, as an enemy, you could light up the specific lenses that the detector scans consecutively and heats up too much with no chance to cool but that is tough to achieve if the detector is scanning lenses pointed in opposite directions one after another.

What's the catch? You give up "frame-rate" since you are scanning lenses. But if the scan rate and detector is much faster than your own eyes (or reaction times or enemy reaction times) then you will not notice the difference.

A larger eye is indeed easier to target with something like a bullet, but if your objective is to withstand optical attacks intended to blind you, then a large detection area for a given field of view (i.e. a given amount of captured incident light), that would result in a lower incident power density over the detector area and thus allow you to better withstand such attacks.

Now, such a design would result in a larger mechanism but the mechanism would not necessarily need to outwardly look larger since while the internal detector is large, the external light collecting element (i.e. lens) could be small.

You could add an iris and zoom mechanism to allow the large detector to be adjust for sensitivity/ruggedness and field of view as desired. That would make it outwardly large.

But another way it could be outwardly large is to use the same large detector with many smaller lenses resulting in a compound eye of sorts. If the small lenses were optically multiplexed to the large detector, and each lens had a small field of view pointed at a unique angle, you would have a system that is rugged to optical attacks with telescopic vision simultaneously with a large field of view due to the stitched image from each small lens.

Since the detector is scanning through the lenses and only looking through one lens at a time, to blind it you would have to pump a lot of power through one particular lens. But since the detector effectively blinking between all the lenses, it would also have some protection similar to the blink response and it could just not return to scan a lens that was lit up too much for sometime. That way, you could not only withstand blinding attacks but you can see around them as well (seeing with your left eye while someone stabs you in the right eye so to speak). Or you could light up the specific lenses that the detector scans consecutively and heats up too much with no chance to cool but that is tough to achieve if the detector is scanning lenses pointed in opposite directions one after another.

What's the catch? You give up "frame-rate" since you are scanning lenses. But if the scan rate and detector is much faster than your eyes then you will not notice the difference.

A larger eye is indeed easier to target with something like a bullet, but if your objective is to withstand optical attacks intended to blind you, then a large detection area for a given field of view (i.e. a given amount of captured incident light), that would result in a lower incident power density over the detector area and thus allow you to better withstand such attacks.

Now, such a design would result in a larger mechanism but the mechanism would not necessarily need to outwardly look larger since while the internal detector is large, the external light collecting element (i.e. lens) could be small.

You could add an iris and zoom mechanism to allow the large detector to be adjust for sensitivity/ruggedness and field of view as desired. That would make it outwardly large.

But another way it could be outwardly large is to use the same large detector with many smaller lenses resulting in a compound eye of sorts. If the small lenses were optically multiplexed to the large detector, and each lens had a small field of view pointed at a unique angle, you would have a system that is rugged to optical attacks with telescopic vision simultaneously with a large field of view due to the stitched image from each small lens.

Since the detector is scanning through the lenses and only looking through one lens at a time, to blind it you would have to pump a lot of power through one particular lens. But since the detector effectively blinking between all the lenses, it would also have some protection similar to the blink response and it could just not return to scan a lens that was lit up too much for sometime. That way, you could not only withstand blinding attacks but you can see around them as well (seeing with your left eye while someone stabs you in the right eye so to speak, just don't look straight at them). Or you could light up the specific lenses that the detector scans consecutively and heats up too much with no chance to cool but that is tough to achieve if the detector is scanning lenses pointed in opposite directions one after another.

What's the catch? You give up "frame-rate" since you are scanning lenses. But if the scan rate and detector is much faster than your own eyes (or reaction times or enemy reaction times) then you will not notice the difference.

A larger eye is indeed easier to target with something like a bullet, but if your objective is to withstand optical attacks intended to blind you, then a large detection area for a given field of view (i.e. a given amount of captured incident light), that would result in a lower incident power density over the detector area and thus allow you to better withstand such attacks.

Now, such a design would result in a larger mechanism but the mechanism would not necessarily need to outwardly look larger since while the internal detector is large, the external light collecting element (i.e. lens) could be small.

You could add an iris and zoom mechanism to allow the large detector to be adjust for sensitivity/ruggedness and field of view as desired. That would make it outwardly large.

But another way it could be outwardly large is to use the same large detector with many smaller lenses resulting in a compound eye of sorts. If the small lenses were optically multiplexed to the large detector, and each lens had a small field of view pointed at a unique angle, you would have a system that is rugged to optical attacks with telescopic vision simultaneously with a large field of view due to the stitched image from each small lens.

Since the detector is only looking through one lens at a time, to blind it you would have to pump a lot of power through that lens. But since the detector is multiplexing, it doesn't remain on any lens for long and automatically jumps away preventing damage similar to the blink response, and it could just not return to that lens for a while in case it is still lit up. That way, you could not only withstand blinding attacks but you can see around them as well.

What's the catch? You give up "frame-rate" since you are scanning lenses. But if the scan rate and detector is much faster than your eyes then you will not notice the difference.

A larger eye is indeed easier to target with something like a bullet, but if your objective is to withstand optical attacks intended to blind you, then a large detection area for a given field of view (i.e. a given amount of captured incident light), that would result in a lower incident power density over the detector area and thus allow you to better withstand such attacks.

Now, such a design would result in a larger mechanism but the mechanism would not necessarily need to outwardly look larger since while the internal detector is large, the external light collecting element (i.e. lens) could be small.

You could add an iris and zoom mechanism to allow the large detector to be adjust for sensitivity/ruggedness and field of view as desired. That would make it outwardly large.

But another way it could be outwardly large is to use the same large detector with many smaller lenses resulting in a compound eye of sorts. If the small lenses were optically multiplexed to the large detector, and each lens had a small field of view pointed at a unique angle, you would have a system that is rugged to optical attacks with telescopic vision simultaneously with a large field of view due to the stitched image from each small lens.

Since the detector is scanning through the lenses and only looking through one lens at a time, to blind it you would have to pump a lot of power through one particular lens. But since the detector effectively blinking between all the lenses, it would also have some protection similar to the blink response and it could just not return to scan a lens that was lit up too much for sometime. That way, you could not only withstand blinding attacks but you can see around them as well (seeing with your left eye while someone stabs you in the right eye so to speak). Or you could light up the specific lenses that the detector scans consecutively and heats up too much with no chance to cool but that is tough to achieve if the detector is scanning lenses pointed in opposite directions one after another.

What's the catch? You give up "frame-rate" since you are scanning lenses. But if the scan rate and detector is much faster than your eyes then you will not notice the difference.