Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 53
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    6,914
    That's the difference between 1 and 2 and you can see why Gabe wouldn't even concider 1 and 2nd gen is hardly clear. It's all about you get what you pay for with nvd's.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    136
    Tag for further education
    HONOR
    all else

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,857
    Quote Originally Posted by chad newton View Post
    That's the difference between 1 and 2 and you can see why Gabe wouldn't even concider 1 and 2nd gen is hardly clear. It's all about you get what you pay for with nvd's.
    If that is in response to my post, I am asking about a difference between the PVS-14 Gen 3, and Gen 3+.
    There are two types of pain in this world, one of discipline, and one of regret. - Greg Nichols

    Because most like the idea of being a warrior more than the reality of it. - Dave Sauer

    Human beings aren’t the top of the food chain because we’re just so clever. We’re there because deep inside we are the most homicidal animal on the planet, and sometimes that animal isn’t buried all that deep.

    "Last edited by Boetman; 10-21-2015 at 01:54 PM. Reason: confuckulated "

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    6,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt. Psycho View Post
    If that is in response to my post, I am asking about a difference between the PVS-14 Gen 3, and Gen 3+.
    No bro, I just wanted other guys to see it too. Plus why Gabe wouldn't consider gen 1.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Republic of Pirates
    Posts
    44,861
    Generation 0
    The first night vision aids (also called Generation Zero or Gen 0) were sniper scopes that came into use during World War II and the Korean conflict. These were not true image intensifiers, but rather image converters, which required a source of invisible infrared (IR) light mounted on or near the device to illuminate the target area.

    Generation 1

    The "starlight scopes" developed during the early 1960's for use in Vietnam were the first Generation (Gen 1) of image intensifier devices. In Gen 1 night vision units, three image intensifiers were connected in a series, making the units longer and heavier than future night vision units would be. Gen 1 equipment produced an image that was clear in the center of the field of view but suffered from large optical distortion around the periphery. Gen 1 equipment was also subject to "blooming". Most low-cost imported night vision units use Gen 1 technology, though often under the guise of a higher "generation".

    Generation 2
    The development of the microchannel plate, or MCP, in the late 1960s brought on the second generation (Gen 2) in l˛ night vision. The MCP accelerated and multiplied electrons which provided the gain previously supplied by coupling three image intensifiers together (Gen 1). The introduction of the MCP significantly reduced size and weight for image intensifier tubes, enabling design of smaller night vision goggles and hand-held devices. The MCP also provided much more robust operation when bright lights entered the field of view. The Gen 2 tubes used the same tri-alkali photocathode as the Gen 1 devices. This generation was implemented to reflect the change in how the light was amplified (MCP versus three-stage coupling).

    Generation 3
    Third-generation (Gen 3) image intensifiers were developed in the mid-1970s and became available during the early 1980s. Gen 3 introduced two major technological improvements: the gallium arsenide (GaAs) photocathode and the ion barrier coating to the microchannel plate. The GaAs photocathode increases the tube's sensitivity to light from the near-infrared range of the spectrum, enables it to function at greater detection distances, and improves system performance under low-light conditions. Application of a metal-oxide ion barrier to the MCP increases the life of the image tube. The operational life of Gen 3 tubes is in excess of 10,000 hours, compared to that of Gen 2 tubes which is about 2,000 to 4,000 hours. This generation was implemented to reflect the change in the photocathode (tri-alkali replaced with GaAs).

    Gated Filmless Technology
    Gated filmless technology was created in 1998, but without the reliability required for military delivery. By removing the ion barrier film and "gating" the system power supply, the technology demonstrated substantial increases in target detection range and resolution. In the process, however, it was discovered by ITT, that the same performance results could be achieved using a Generation 3 tube, but with a thinner ion barrier film and a auto-gated power supply, without sacrificing reliability and life-span of the intensifier tube.

    Myth vs. Fact: Generation 4
    Some say that generation (Gen) 4 is the most advanced night vision you can buy. This is not the case. To dispel this myth, let's start with the basics. There are four Generations of night vision; however, they are Gen 0-3, not Gen 1-4. Historically, the U.S. Army has defined each Generation of night vision. In the late 90's the Army did define Gen 4 as the removal of the ion barrier film creating a "filmless" tube. This new advancement was to reduce halos while increasing sensitivity, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and resolution, for overall improved performance. While performance was improved, the lack of an ion barrier in Gen 4 tubes led to high failure rates, ultimately leading the U.S. Army to recant the existence of Gen 4 definition. Recognizing the high failure rates of Gen 4 tubes, ITT chose to improve upon the existing Gen 3 technology and create a "thin-filmed" tube. By keeping the protective ion barrier, but greatly reducing its thickness, ITT was able to maintain the reliability of Gen 3 while—at the same time—delivering on the Army's performance requirements intended for Gen 4. This innovation resulted in the production of the Gen 3 thin-filmed tube, which is now the highest performing Gen 3 tube available.

    http://www.nightvision.com/products/...study-gen3.htm
    Gabe Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    468
    Quote Originally Posted by Base Bleed View Post
    Having only run NV for surveillance, I don't know anything about NV w/ weapons. What is the pro/con o running a thermal rifle sight (a bit more $) while maintaining a single eye monocular setup on head mount?
    That's a very large advantage. If something or someone is hidden in the bushes etc, NV is not going to allow you to see into thick stuff but you can use it to see to navigate and provide a backup to a laser, where thermal can help you identify a broken up outline of something in there based on the heat signature.

    Use thermal for identifying if the "something/someone is there" the NVG's allow you to see in the dark more effectively and move, see branches, dips in terrain (this takes practice to understand what you're seeing and the actual distance from you while walking.

    Ultimately it depends upon what you want to do, where you are operating and your bank account.
    Last edited by usmc1986; 02-11-2013 at 04:51 AM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    468
    Since most of us get a better idea with pictures. Here are some sample differences between the Gen I, Gen II and Gen III units.

    PVS14ag_1_3.jpg

    GT14_1_3.jpg
    D300_1_3.jpg
    Viper_1_3.jpg

    Outdoor area Surveillance comparison

    PVS14pin_2_1.jpg
    Last edited by usmc1986; 02-11-2013 at 05:16 AM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    468
    Outdoor surveillance comparison continued.
    GT14_2_3.jpg
    D300_2_1.jpg
    D300_2_3.jpg
    Viper_2_1.jpg

    Viper_2_3.jpg

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Republic of Pirates
    Posts
    44,861
    For indoor use with a pistol, one can certainly benefit from the FLIR since navigation is a moot issue. That will help you locate heat sigs easier. For out door broken terrain, standard night vision wins. Night vision offers capabilities outside the narrow offering of FLIR. AND...at this time, I am not aware of head mounted FLIR for less than $5000.
    Gabe Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5,061
    When I was in the Army, '72-'78, we occasionally were allowed to get our hands on the AN/PVS-2 "Starlight Scope." Mostly nobody wanted to carry it because losing it would have been your paycheck for a couple of years. It was quite heavy, and was particularly annoying after you removed one eye from it and had complete blackout of that eye for a while. Although you could mount it on an M-16, the resulting product was like carrying a mini recoilless rifle.

    For the most part I simply preferred ambient light and binoculars.

    Technology has sure come a long way.
    I shamelessly profile. Extensively and all day long. It is what I credit my survival to.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •