Sound Generator Lethal From 10 Meters 314
penguinrecorder writes "The Thunder Generator uses a mixture of liquefied petroleum, cooking gas, and air to create explosions, which in turn generate shock waves capable of stunning people from 30 to 100 meters away. At that range, the weapon is relatively harmless, making people run in panic when they feel the sonic blast hitting their bodies. However, at less than ten meters, the Thunder Generator is capable of causing permanent damage or killing people."
Permanent damage at 100 meters too... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... (Score:5, Funny)
Which is why these things would be perfect for a rock concert. Set a few throughout the crowd and time them to the bass drum. Hardcore!
Yeah music to die for (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/09/64829 [wired.com]
Reporting in the medical journal Thorax, they describe the cases of four young men who suffered a lung collapse -- technically called pneumothorax -- that appeared to be triggered by loud music. Three of the men were at a concert or club when the pneumothorax occurred, while the fourth was in his car, which was outfitted with a 1,000-watt bass box because he "liked to listen to loud music."
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see the big news here. At close range it's easy to kill. Even something like a $5 potato cannon can kill people at close range. Being in close proximity to exploding things has never really been good for your health..
I dunno... 10 meters isn't really what I would personally call "close range." That's 30ish feet... Roughly the height of a three-story building. That's a good amount of distance between you and the target.
And I wonder what the area of affect is like... Is this a single-target thing, or a crowd-dispersal thing? Because if it's designed for crowd control, I'm imagining it's got a pretty big area of effect... And you can fit an awful lot of people in a 30' cone... All of which would be permanently injured or killed.
If you look at the article...
According to company data, the system generates 60 to 100 bursts per minute, each traveling at about 2,000 meters per second and lasting up to 300 milliseconds.
One standard 12-kilogram LPG gas canister (retail cost: about $25) can produce up to 5,000 shock bursts.
"That's more than enough for hours of continuous operation,"
Imagine the potential for misuse.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Potato Cannons (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, don't start it up. Those folks in Idaho are a thin skinned bunch.
The Idaho Potatoe Council, through their spokesman, Spuddy Buddy, want to reiterate that, "Potatoes don't kill people, people kill people."
"The potatoe is a non-lethal vegetable. In fact, there is only one tuber that is considered a weapon, but it is grown only in the upper most reaches of the Andeas on the boarders of Chile and Peru," Buddy went on to say.
Did you know millions of potatoes have been shipped around the world as humanitarian relief. Not a single one has been used in military agression. There has only been one instance of a potato being used to kill. That was the aforementioned Peruvian Murder Spud (rough translation) that the CIA used in an assasination attempt on the husband of Evita Peron.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dan Quayle, is that you?
Re:Potato Cannons (Score:4, Funny)
Potatoes are a gateway to violence. Millions of children are taught to drive pointy objects into Mr.Potatohead. Then they grow up to be punks and drive nails into each other's scalps.
Clearly potatoes are a menace to society, and should be banned.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
the aforementioned Peruvian Murder Spud (rough translation) that the CIA used in an assasination attempt on the husband of Evita Peron.
No, you've gotten it all wrong. There's no such thing as the Peruvian Murder Spud. The CIA used the Argentinian
Murder Spud on Juan Peron. He was an Argentinian, after all.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really have problems with them using it when they would have used 'other' less lethal weapons anyways, such as tear gas and water hoses.
This probably won't replace shotgun bean bags or tasers, they're individual weapons while this is a mass weapon.
The problem comes from proper usage - potentially violent crowds are often led by 'professional' exciters, and they'd be smart enough to know that if you can get people within that 10 meter unsafe zone the operators are a lot less likely to set it off, and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In other news, a concussion can be dangerous.
Ya, it's not news. It sounds like a potato cannon without the potato, firing at 100 pulses per minute. Pretty interesting that they're getting that kind of rate, but still, obviously dangerous.
There's a reason a concussion grenade works, and it's not always shrapnel. I'm guessing the 10m deadly zone is directly downrange of the cannon, not beside or behind it. It's still a contained explosion, so all the force goes
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that it's being pushed as "non-lethal", yet it clearly can be lethal. Like tasers. Around 350 people have died in the US in the last 10 years from supposedly non-lethal tasers.
The other issue is that if it's not lethal and causes no permanent damage, it's a new tool for torture. Again, like tasers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems like it would be workable. Plus, I bet there is a way to ramp up the effects over, say a minute? That would help to clear everyone out from the destructive zone before it hits full power.
All in all, could be quite effective - though not subtle.
Non-lethal is perhaps a greater threat (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually find this worrisome, from the standpoint of civil liberty. Non-violent protest actually relies on the brutality of governmental response to provoke sympathy and garner support for one's cause. While the so-called "non-lethal" weapons of today are still pretty brutal, I invite people to follow me on a little thought experiment that illustrates my concern.
Let's carry non-lethal crowd control methods to their ultimate conclusion. Imagine a device that lulls people to sleep, whereupon they're carried home, placed in their beds, enjoy a night's rest like the haven't managed in months, and awake to find a chocolate morsel on their nightstands and a terrifically refreshed sense of well-being. If crowds of peaceful protesters are broken up by repressive governments using this device, how much sympathy will that garner? How effective will civil disobedience be?
The scenario I describe is purposefully fanciful and exaggerated. Nevertheless, my point is that non-lethal methods carry the very real threat of keeping bad governments from looking all that bad. Government should hurt; and repressing civil disobedience should carry the risk of looking bad. Otherwise, you can be sure it will be used at the drop of a hat. And that may just pose a problem.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
wall of air = pressure wave
sound = pressure wave
therefore:
wall of air = sound
Please explain to this simpleton where I'm misinformed?
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Wall of Air = Card [wizards.com].
Re: (Score:2)
No need to call yourself a simpleton, you simply forget about oscillation and velocity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes and no -- and no in this case -- as far as I understand. (I'd appreciate clarification/correction/confirmation from others on the points I make below.)
In most contexts -- and I assume sound falls into this category -- the energy of a signal is its squared L2 norm. (This is certainly true for the power dissipated in a resistive load by a voltage or current signal.) Anyway, the L2 norm is invariant under the Fourier transform. And you'll notice that a Dirac delta has the same L2 norm whether it's as 2
Re: (Score:2)
According to TFA:
"Anyone within 30 to 50 meters from the cannon will feel like he's standing in front of a firing squad," he said. "He'll feel and hear the blast, but he won't be hurled to the ground. He'll be able to run away unharmed and that's the point of this application."
It seems this will not have much physical force, but will indeed have potential for causing hearing loss.
TFA SAID, "RELATIVELY HARMLESS"!!! (Score:2)
</Garrett_Morris>
Re:TFA SAID, "RELATIVELY HARMLESS"!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A .22 derringer will leave most people's ears ringing. So with a short enough barrel it doesn't even take much powder.
Re: (Score:2)
When 11 Just Isn't Loud Enough... (Score:2, Funny)
When 11 just isn't loud enough...
Finally, Disaster Area can live up to their reputation!
Etc...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand. If this is a 12, Disaster Area is somewhere hovering around a 400 or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Large hot pipe organ at Robodock, hard to see but pump up the volume.
The machine in the article sounds a lot like one we built there, only our "cannons" where controlled through Cubase/Fruityloops-style music software. And pointed straight up to minimize lethality, allthough glass still shattered at 50 meters/150 feet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oceb7Uf4ucQ [youtube.com]
LHPO + AIBF? (Score:2)
Cool, I've been a fan of LHPO for years. I used to crew for hot-air balloons so just the thought of MIDI-controlled propane torches is awesome.
You need to do a gig at the Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta. Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
I think i can design, produce and operate shows that will leave most people slack-jawed
(think Fusion/Robodock/Burningman/Glastonbury if that means anything to you). But i'm in Holland, and it takes a lot of time, people or money, pick two ; ). In fact, pick three.
I know just the people for a massive midi/torches show, they do basslines on huge freestanding torches ON the dancefloor with overhead flames and explosions, and mid and high on a small fireorgan. They did the dancefloor at Fusion a couple of year
Re: (Score:2)
Top news as it happens on Slashdot! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sufficiently powerful shock waves can kill people!
Coming up next we ask an expert - what exactly is an explosion again?
Weather follows at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
It's news because /. will rail against this tech as being a tool of oppression that Bush will use on peaceful protesters.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people are having trouble remembering it's not 2009 anymore, but you seem to still be stuck on 2008. :)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Lamest comment today (Score:3, Funny)
THAT'S JUST STUNNING!
Re: (Score:2)
wait... (Score:2)
Does this mean a real Sonic Screwdriver is not far behind?
"liquefied petroleum"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
liquefied petroleum gas, not liquefied petroleum solid. It's not like LPG is uncommon.
Of course leaving off the Gas part in the name is pretty uncommon.
Re: (Score:2)
All I can add is that LPG is not actually the same as the stuff called "petrol" in English and "gasoline" in American. It's a lighter fraction that would be gaseous at RTP but is kept as a liquid in a pressurised tank.
Re: (Score:2)
aka Propane [wikipedia.org]. You know, the stuff used for grilling food in on your back porch that comes in 25lb canisters.
Well, canisters that are capable of holding 25lbs, but are not filled to capacity anymore. But that is another story.
Yet Another Oops (Score:5, Informative)
Having stated that, I will add my voice to what others have already posted: this device is a disaster waiting to happen. It has no place in "positive" enforcement scenarios. It might be useful as a self-defense weapon, but I question even that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We already have water cannon, if the object is crowd control/riot control/etc. Why do we need something with what strikes me as considerably more potential for damaging people, since they won't be able to SEE it and get the hell out of its path?
Or maybe that IS the object.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This has existed for years (Score:2)
http://pbskids.org/barney/ [pbskids.org]
Fuel-air explosion (Score:3, Insightful)
So how exactly is it surprising that a fuel-air explosion will scare, hurt and even kill people depending on the distance?
Pacifist (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's primary purpose is to end a threat without killing. Which, oddly enough, is the purpose of weapons for non-evil folk.
Generally, even crooks don't want to kill people, they just want to deter you from interfering with their crime. Some bad guys revel in killing, but that's why we dedicate a segment of our society to dealing with them: police and military. It's unfortunate, but the bad guys don't give a shit about what is fair or the resources wasted on deterring, persuing, trying and imprisoning. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Stun guns don't kill people, people kill people.
The outbreak of stun guns and pepper spray related crimes is skyrocketing around the World.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Maybe I'm being a bit too much of a pacifist here, but why are we constantly spending so much time developing newer ways to kill ourselves.. seems like we could better use those resources."
Because then the people who spent their resources on developing new ways to kill use those innovations on the people that didn't.
Also, finding new ways or better ways to kill has been one of the great motivational forces for human innovation since the first caveman figured out a stone attached to a stick will hit harder
Re:Pacifist (Score:5, Interesting)
Because then the people who spent their resources on developing new ways to kill use those innovations on the people that didn't.
Nope.
Genocide is really rare. Invasion, colonization and assimilation is a lot more common.
Killing people is almost entirely pointless. Threatening to kill people is what does the job, because people happen to be wired in ways that let them be controlled up to a point by such threats. When the threat level becomes too high they always fight back, of course, because they happen to be wired that way, too.
Gandhi's big trick was to realize that death threats are not generally credible, and react accordingly, which means not allowing your behaviour to be controlled by threats, and being willing to die rather than submit. There are specific circumstances where that won't work at all--such as the Jews in Nazi Germany--but in almost all cases peaceful, active resistance is far more effective.
These weapons, as others here have pointed out, are aimed at Gandhi-style tactics: by having a non-lethal response to a peaceful, active resistance it tilts the tables back toward the oppressors, who are basically engaging in mass instantaneous public torture-at-a-distance via the use of these weapons.
These weapons are designed to generate compliance with the alpha chimp's wishes by engaging people's pain response rather than their fear response. The latter can be fairly easily subverted, depending as it does on a vague cognitive connection between threat and outcome. The former is much tougher nut to crack, although it'll be interesting to see the first time the cops are on the receiving end of one of these weapons, which will no-doubt be reduced to hand-held form factors in the next couple of years.
Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
Jon-Erik Hexum (Score:5, Interesting)
Things harmless at range can kill at contact distance. [wikipedia.org] That's why some blind people with licenses to carry concealed handguns use blanks.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll be wanting to take away their driving licenses, next!
Re:Jon-Erik Hexum (Score:5, Interesting)
Umm. Fully blind people can get CCWs? They can fire live rounds? I suppose I can see why the 2nd ammendment allows for that, but still, wtf America.
They're blind, not stupid or irresponsible. Blind people are perfectly capable of understanding the risks and potential consequences of using a firearm for self-defense. Granted that it's much more difficult for them to use a gun safely and effectively, but those obstacles are no more insuperable than many others a blind person faces. Obviously, they would only use their gun on an attacker at contact distance, and the idea of using blanks is to prevent innocents from being injured by overpenetration, since the blind person may not know who or what is on the other side of their target.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend blanks for that application. I'd recommend frangible bullets, or perhaps just a relatively light powder charge in a large caliber cartridge with a reliably-expanding jacketed hollowpoint. Blanks fired into the chest are unlikely to stop a determined attacker. On the other hand, 95% of firearms self-defense incidents don't involve a shot being fired at all -- the attacker sees the gun and runs away -- so blanks would work fine. With blanks, you could even fire a "warning shot" (NOT a good idea with real ammunition) to make the point that you're serious, which would probably raise the likelihood of the bad guy turning tail another percentage point or two.
Oh, and to answer the first question: Yes, in most states. A handful (e.g. Nevada) have range requirements that would be hard for a blind person to meet. Then again, there may be exceptions in the laws, or ways around them for disabled people.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wait... don't blind people have big dogs? Why use guns when you could merely attach a frikin laser...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> it's much more difficult for them to use a gun safely and effectively, but those obstacles are no more insuperable than many others a blind person faces.
If it's really dark, some of them might be able to shoot you before you shoot them ;)
There are a fair number of blind people who use echolocation and passive hearing to detect objects.
See: http://www.benunderwood.com/echolocation.html [benunderwood.com]
Even sighted people can notice the "sound shadow" caused by someone blocking ambient sound - so it doesn't matter even i
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In the '60s, the NRA spent ten years and $12 million developing a bullet able to be fired by blind people. It's a relatively light powder charge in a large caliber cartdrige with a reliably-expanding jacketed hollowpoint, designed so it can injure attackers at contact distance while being relatively harmless to people at range. Russians, however, just used a knife.
Re:Jon-Erik Hexum (Score:4, Interesting)
Re-read the post - he mentions blind people using blanks, so they can point a gun at a nearby attacker & fire, without much risk to anyone further away.
Also, a CCW entitles you to legally carry a weapon, not necessarily a gun - the details vary by state, but that may include a stun-gun, pepper-spray, knife, baton, you get the idea... A weapon that may normally be prohibited but is OK with a CCW permit. Some of those would be useful even if blind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IAF Sound Devices (Score:5, Informative)
This is not the only sound based non-lethal weapon used by the IAF. They also use a device called The Scream [wanttoknow.info], which emits a sound that causes disorientation and nausea. This one works at low, inaudible frequencies that vibrate the internal organs of the targets. There is also an high frequency version that is audible, that also produces a burning sensation on the skin (but does not produce any permanent damage).
I think they were also toying with using these types of weapons against the pirates in Somalia.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting aside to PP: The movie Irreversible [imdb.com] used low-frequency sounds in its soundtrack to induce nausea in the viewer.
Mixture of what? (Score:2)
It is as a mosquito's whine.. (Score:2, Funny)
First Dune Post (Score:5, Funny)
"Through sound and motion, you will be able to paralyze nerves, shatter bones, set fires, suffocate an enemy or burst his organs."
How fast? (Score:4, Interesting)
According to company data, the system generates 60 to 100 bursts per minute, each traveling at about 2,000 meters per second and lasting up to 300 milliseconds.
It is pretty impressive they can make a burst of sound move at six times the speed of sound.
Re: (Score:2)
* this is for all normal shocks, such as those from explosions. Oblique shock waves have different properties.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, the detonation can be faster than the speed of sound but the resulting sound only propagates at the speed of sound.
To get those bursts to propagate to the target at supersonic rates there would have to be combustible gas all the way from the device to the target.
A jet fighter going at mach 2 carries with it a sonic boom traveling at 6 times the speed of sound.
When it passes overhead at an altitude of 6k feet, you see it pass and you hear it 6 seconds later.
The sonic boom travels at mach 2 only because
Super Villians (Score:2)
Know what else is lethal at 10 meters? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like American Idol but America's Got Talent produce Terry Fator, and well the man's talented.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG6MyTDoZXs [youtube.com]
Kate Bush did it! (Score:3, Interesting)
Warning - pretentious as hell, even for Kate Bush fans. YMMV. Starring Hugh "the guy from House" Laurie and Dawn "magnificent bosom" French.
Sound Generator? (Score:4, Insightful)
A bomb is a sound generator too, and maybe we should this thing for what it is, a bomb. It is very loud when it explodes, and is world renowned for its ability to stun people at safe distances and kill them at closer distances.
Weirding module (Score:2)
Just a variation on a carbide cannon (Score:2)
So, basically all that is new is the recharge time and the decibels.
Marketing? (Score:2)
Re:The A-Team (Score:4, Funny)
I was thinking more Unreal Tournament: MMMmmmmm MULTI KILL!
Eta till this is in some PC game where it works as tested?
Kate Bush! (Score:3, Interesting)
Kate Bush's song about this type of thing: "Experiment IV"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6hvNe11r9U [youtube.com]
"They told us
All they wanted
Was a sound that could kill someone
From a distance.
So we go ahead,
And the meters are over in the red.
It's a mistake in the making."
Re: (Score:2)
MEGA KILL!
Want this in my car! (Score:4, Funny)
I would love to mount one of these babies under the hood and use it as a killer car horn for those drivers who JUST. WON'T. MOVE. One blast from this thing and they'll never sit there texting at the green light again. Also handy for those clueless people who drive UNDER THE SPEED LIMIT in the leftmost lane. Can't take a hint? Can't see my lights flashing? Don't realize you're clogging up the expressway? BOOOOMMMMM. Imagine the satisfying feeling as they instinctively floor the accelerator while blood dribbles down from their ears! Ahhh.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"How about those assholes that honk their horns and flash their highbeams behind me when I'm doing 5 over the speed limit but think I should get out of the left lane anyway?"
You should get out of the left lane unless you're passing someone. The left lane is for passing - you do not drive in that lane for any period of time or at any speed, unless passing. Why don't more people know/respect this law?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you read the page you just quoted? Below the table appears:
The Uniform Vehicle Code states:
Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic ...
Note that this law refers to the "normal" speed of traffic, not the "legal" speed of traffic. The 60 MPH driver in a 55 MPH zone where everybody else is going 65 MPH must move right. Contrast Alaska's rule, 13 AAC 002.50, allowing vehicles driving at the speed limit to use the left lane, and Colorado rev. stat. 42-4-1103, prohibiting blocking the "normal and reasonable" movement of traffic.
Emphasis is mine. It's almost as if the author of that page is responding directly to your GP post...
Re: (Score:2)
Killer speakers, dude.
Re:The A-Team (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Taking a cue from MythBusters the other day, I want to use this to tenderize meat. How would you like your steak? Oh, 10 meters and medium rare, please!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I prefer a cannon (Score:3, Interesting)