Chinese Scientists Have Developed the World's First Destructive Laser Rifle (popsci.com) 252
PopularScience: Chinese scientists have developed the world's first destructive, man-portable laser weapon. However, there is more to the story of this cool looking, but "less than lethal" directed energy device. The laser rifle is the ZKZM-500, developed by Xian Institute of Optics and Precision Mechanics in Xian, Shaanxi. It's manufactured by the Institute's subsidiary, ZKZM Laser. Weighing at 6 pounds (about the weight of a typical assault rifle), the ZKZM-500 has a range of 2,600 feet. The ZKZM-500 uses a lithium battery with enough power for 1000 two second shots (keep in mind, those 1000 shots may not be at full power). According to Institute designers, its laser is powerful enough to instantly scar human skin and tissue. It can also ignite clothing, knock a small drone out of the sky, or even ignite a fuel tank. That would place its power output around 100-500 watts (most surgical lasers top out at 100 watts).
Let me know (Score:2)
"enough to instantly scar human skin and tissue" (Score:2)
"enough to instantly scar human skin and tissue" very effective against "model armies" - if you know what I mean ;)
Video (Score:5, Informative)
The original video since the Popsci article doesn't care to provide a link:
https://www.scmp.com/video/offbeat/2153779/chinese-star-wars-laser-weapon-appears-set-fire-objects-distance
Re:Video (Score:4, Insightful)
Dunno why they are likening it to Star Wars, they were clearly using some kind of plasma weapons in that movie. Lasers produce a beam that travels at the speed of light, but the Star Wars they shoot short burst of relatively slow moving plasma.
Re: (Score:2)
thanks for that. video proves nothing. (Score:2)
A video of people on a rooftop allegedly setting stuff on fire with a laser proves precisely nothing. Even if a laser is being used, there's zero indication that it is the handheld device that's emitting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. That rifle is being held awfully steady to put the pinpoint of light on something long enough for it to burn through. Either that rifleman has an exceptionally steady hand or there is some very cool steadying technology being used to keep the beam in one location once initially set.
Or it's all a hoax/fabrication. Occams' Razor and all that.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If the US were to steal the designs and market them to the rest of the world?
It would be hilarious if anyone thought that a device like this made any sense. Laser weapons do make sense, but only on vehicles, and primarily for point defense.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be, only this is total vaporware. They're stooping to the level of North Korean propagandist claims here (although lately NK began to deliver on some of their claims).
In short, the physics don't check out, not even close.
Next week: China solves the cold fusion problem.
Most likely a hoax (Score:3)
There is no independent confirmation of the existence of this rifle. Absolutely none.
Perhaps we are missing the purpose of these lasers (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps we are all missing the true end use for these lasers.
Maybe their intended use is to blind night vision devices and infrared cameras.
I read that the Chinese were using lasers to prevent pilots from getting near their bases and the island that they built in the South China Sea.
Perhaps this is an extension of that use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The supposed use will be as a less-than-lethal weapon for applications like crowd control.
In Other Words... (Score:2)
They hooked up one of these to a laptop battery and some capacitors, with a switch as a trigger:
https://www.alibaba.com/produc... [alibaba.com]
Nigh impossible (Score:4, Funny)
- The laser module - sure it exists but it is going to be big and need water cooling if it's going to be of any use
- The weight - the module itself for a 500W laser comes in ~5kg. Even if they somehow got the module to fit in the 6kg they claim it weighs, the batteries and watercooling will pack on an additional 6-10kg.
- The power requirements ~0.3 kWh (not accounting for losses from water cooling and other gear), that requires a small motorcycle battery, even if made from Lithium, not something you easily carry around in a 6kg package.
Re: (Score:2)
- The weight - the module itself for a 500W laser comes in ~5kg. Even if they somehow got the module to fit in the 6kg they claim it weighs, the batteries and watercooling will pack on an additional 6-10kg.
The summary and article both claim 6 lbs, not kg, making it an even more unlikely claim.
Re: (Score:2)
The truck brings power to a number of troops with their laser packs?
Re: (Score:2)
Further support for the debunking of this 'weapon.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Only use : blinding civilian crowds (Score:2)
Although China has signed the UN convention on not producing weapons "intended to blind", I'm guessing that means "as their primary function", since all bigger lasers (included ones fielded by the USA) can burn through solids, so can sure toast your retina in a heartbeat.
These smaller "rifles" would be useless against a well-equipped conventional military force; while you're trying to burn them somewhere (at a 100 yards) they've already shot your balls off at 150...
For use in space? (Score:2)
A lot of the disadvantages of these go away if there is no air in the way. Could this be a reaction to the "Space Force" announcements?
I'm just thinking the space battle in Moonraker... If all you need to do is to poke a small hole in someones suit...
Radiation hazard to shooter and nearby humans (Score:2)
Fire that puppy 1000 times and you've absorbed enough radiation that is unhealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Fire that puppy 1000 times and you've absorbed enough radiation that is unhealthy.
Not a problem for the AV or drone (or shark) it will be mounted on
Re: (Score:2)
absorbed enough radiation that is unhealthy.
A laser does not produce any radiation, except the laser beam.
For radiation you would need extremely odd lasers like a nuke induced gamma laser, or a free electron laser with stray X-Rays.
And to know that: you don't need to be a "laser safety officer".
No they did not (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Try 5 years ago Americans already had one made and operational.
China did not make the worlds first destructive laser rifle. Not even fucking close.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, look, someone else already beat me to analyzing this bullshit - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
National Laser Association. (Score:3)
You can have my Laser Rifle when you can pry it from my cold dead hands!
Wait, there's more! (Score:2)
Proof of Concept, Probably not Practical (Score:3)
The US have heavily tested laser weapons already and for the most part they aren't practical compared to conventional weapons in most cases. This is one of those cool Sci-Fi ideas that doesn't pan out. The problem is most lasers aren't very efficient and the ones that are (chemical lasers) use stuff so nasty they'd be deadly to the soldier carrying it if it burst or broke. Not to mention rain or dust or hazy day would reduce its effectiveness. It's probably a concept weapon that can give you a burn or blind but compare that to oh getting hit by a 50 cal round which would blow parts off you. It's likely a test concept weapon for experimenting but I highly doubt it'll ever come into widespread use.
Finally (Score:2)
Popular science, ugh (Score:2)
I'm so sick of that site, for over 5 years they've done Geo IP redirection, ensuring if I click their links, I'll be just redirected to the front page of their Aussie web site.
It's some antique internet rubbish. I've even emailed them, it's moronic.
Can I put a hit out on their site here? Can someone please take them out?
Re:Lasers are dumb. (Score:5, Funny)
Wow you can predict precisely where the laser will hit and have the mirror at the ready? Or you're simply walking down the battlefield with a full dress mirror??
Re: (Score:2)
I predict scale-armor will make a comeback.
Re: (Score:2)
I predict scale-armor will make a comeback.
I don't, because I predict the laser weapon if it really exists will only see niche operation.
Re: (Score:2)
How many people do you think you can get dressed in scales? It's not like there are a who lot of lizard people outside of DC.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly underestimate how many lizard-people are in the US. All the 1%ers are lizard people. Any non-lizard person who approaches their wealth are quickly stomped down.
Re: (Score:2)
That was a joke. Clearly the defense against laser-wielding soldiers is just the same as against those with flame-throwers: Shoot them on sight, even when they surrender.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow you can predict precisely where the laser will hit and have the mirror at the ready? Or you're simply walking down the battlefield with a full dress mirror??
Sequined armour dah-ling... Full dress mirrors are so last year.
Re: (Score:2)
In this week's episode of, "Queer Eye for the Laser Guy" ...
Re: (Score:2)
Kilts are for day to day use, for battle you wear a floor length sequined ball gown. The idea is is blind your opponent with opulence.
Re: (Score:2)
you're simply walking down the battlefield with a full dress mirror?
The soldier of the future [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow you can predict precisely where the laser will hit and have the mirror at the ready?
"After reflection, the enemy succumbed" -- Bullard: Tales of the Patrol
Re:Lasers are dumb. (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, it's almost like you picked up on my sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's a helpful reply.
Re: (Score:2)
actually you could wear a reflective camouflage, that is, normal camo pattern in a reflective vest ... it would be the middle term between the two, it would reflect most of the laser, but still be hidden enough ... unless the light conditions are exactly behind the shooter... from other angles, it would not make that difference from normal camouflage
Re: (Score:3)
Probably risky - if the burning outer layer deposits soot on the mirror, then the laser will heat it rather than being reflected. Doesn't take much heating to disrupt a reflective layer.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, a low quality mirror doesn't work so well with higher power lasers. I talked to the guys at the local university who were demonstrating a laser that has a loud pop noise when fired (the beam is enough to instantly ionize the air and cause a mini thunderclap), and they told me a
Re: (Score:2)
Probably easier to design something ablative, or something that carbonizes when hit with the laser - essentially leaving behind a highly-heat resistant and insulating carbon layer. The black parts of the space shuttle were made by carbonizing resins (RCC panels). The result would be a ruined, brittle fabric - but it would protect one's skin from the laser.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, much like a diamond, RCC is a rather special material, it's not just a layer of carbonized material.
We do have several ablative materials that have been tested for use against lasers, but I don't have any details on those.
However, the better armors and their inserts can alread protect reasonably well (or better) against a low power laser weapon like that, as well as defend against conventional weapons.
Sorry a
Re: (Score:2)
Also, much like a diamond, RCC is a rather special material, it's not just a layer of carbonized material.
I didn't mean to imply that they could design fabric that could transform itself into RCC when carbonized - I was just using it as an example of how pure carbon makes a nice insulator with a practical example. RCC would be overkill anyway, as it's not important that the fabric be durable or reusable - just that it absorbs and dissipates a short burst of laser energy. In the worst case we are talking 500 watts for 2 seconds. That's 1000 Joules, which is less than the energy that a bulletproof vest needs to d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the optics on an event for the media. A line of troops, police aim their laser systems. Nothing happens.
No sound from police lines. None of that 1970 US National Guard media image.
Suddenly the criminals doing a riot have problems in their ranks. Their riot fails as individuals no longer want to riot and everyone knows its time to scatter.
Undercover police and police informants get to keep their cover story as criminals run to escape.
Re: (Score:2)
That's when you pull out the dinner-plate-sized disc of chobham armor. To think people cover entire tanks with the stuff... what a waste.
Re:Lasers are dumb. (Score:4, Interesting)
All it takes to thwart any laser based weaponry is to come covered in something that reflects and scatters light well.
Try moving around on a sunny day in reflective gear to see how well that works on a battlefield.
Re: (Score:2)
All it takes to thwart any laser based weaponry is to come covered in something that reflects and scatters light well.
Try moving around on a sunny day in reflective gear to see how well that works on a battlefield.
Try using smoke which is already used to mask tactical troop movements and line of sight.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. And even blinding soldiers is out as they will just wear laser googles. The only useful application of this weapon is to maim civilians.
Re: (Score:2)
Blinding is also prohibited by the Geneva Convention.
Re: (Score:2)
(People always find a way around limitations one way or another. Just research about the napalm/incindigel mess)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which, let me see, the Chinese, the US and some other perverted authoritarian regimes care nothing about?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lasers are dumb. (Score:4, Interesting)
All it takes to thwart any laser based weaponry is to come covered in something that reflects and scatters light well. The effect of a laser weapon is based upon absorption of the light. Technically if you know what kind of laser it is, the color of your clothing might already be enough.
Only if there's no dust in your clothing, and it is exactly, precisely the same color as the laser, and it is only that color. And if the color is a coating, not molded in, because then the laser will strip away everything but the pigment.
It's a cute sci-fi trope, but the idea that wearing clothing of the correct color is a meaningful defense against a laser weapon is totally incorrect. If you just have a little contamination on a mirror, a laser will destroy it. You think you're going to get clothes to do the job? If that did make any sense, you'd want to wear fully white clothing, because that would reflect all visible frequencies. A flat white surface actually reflects more light than an ordinary mirror, because the light doesn't have to pass through the glass twice before you see it. But it still reflects less than 90% of the light, which means that as long as the remaining 10% is sufficient to discolor the garment, that 90% is going to go downhill rapidly.
You don't know the first things about laser rifles (Score:5, Funny)
That's why these people made a laser rifle. The rifling causes the photons to have a twisting polarity, which allows them to drill through reflective surfaces.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Though scientists have figured out how to put spin on a laser (or at least the photons, I forget the details of the article).
Though I don't have any mod points today, you sir/madam/whatever totally deserve them
Re: (Score:2)
Surely if the laser is vaporising water droplets it the steam and heater air will cause a large amount of diffraction.
Re:Lasers are dumb. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Fire off smoke rounds or aerial spray and keep the area soaked with haze or mist. Laser = useless.
That will work for the 1st day. What about the 2nd day, when you have run out of smoke rounds?
Or are you assuming infinite logistical depth?
Re: (Score:2)
Is the opponent not also logistically constrained? The idea that one side could fire lasers at will for an indefinite period of time while the other side does nothing in response except deploy countermeasures is a little strange.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Defeated by a simple mirror.
Trying to deflect random laser small-arms fire with some sort of wearable or man-portable mirror system is...sub-optimal.
All you really need is shark repellent. :)
Strat
Re:Lasers are dumb. (Score:5, Informative)
Likely you are a troll, but a laser will happily burn through a mirror. Depending on the wavelength and the makeup of the "mirror" not all that much power is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the mirror.
Re: Lasers are dumb. (Score:5, Funny)
Just imagine how fabulous the soldiers will be, covered in sequins.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Definitely bullshit. No need to be an optic/photonics nerd to confirm. To give you an idea combat lasers are used today to burn the optics of incoming missiles. And in an experimental setting to boot. Beyond this they are hugely impractical. You also need a huge amount of energy which means a strong electrical generator and a vehicle. There are experiments now to make them work on warships as self defense mechanisms.
So basically news that pretend anyone has made the electrical output of a several thousand o
Re:Some country is going to scream, "our IP, our I (Score:5, Funny)
Fortunately laser rifles are exceptionally effective against straw men.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not a country, just the fake president of a country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No you blithering idiot, it's because they would have to make multiple generational leaps in several separate parts of laser technology in order to be able to get the performance they're claiming.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention battery technology
Re: (Score:2)
Your casual trolling is mediocre, though a few took your bait.
Re: (Score:2)
It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices.
Seeing as most soldiers are trained to shoot at the body centre of mass, you can easily claim that the weapon is to cause physical injury or death (like any other firearm). A weapon that fires tightly confined beam would be useless for trying to blind targets, for that you'd need a weapon that sweeps an area with wide (or rapidly oscillating) beam in order to cover the maximum area.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern wars are not fought between nation-state that have agreed to follow the "Rules of War" and Geneva conventions. Or or more of the participants are terrorists, freedom fighters, Religious Martyrs, warlor5ds, protesters etc
If one side dowan't abide by the rules then the other side will eventually stop obeying them as well.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great relief, since we all know that making something illegal 100% guarantees it won't be used.
That is a version of the feeble libertarian argument that making murder (etc) a crime doesn't 100% stop murders, and therefore laws against murder (etc) are pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
China as a State Party of the Geneva Convention takes it more seriously than most signatories. They hosted the 40th anniversary conference last year.
Re: (Score:3)
Ignite clothing, cause scars, burn and char flesh, instantly permanently blind eyes, and so on, and so forth.
This weapon is much worse than simple killing; I'd say it's a complete flouting of the rules of war. Nice job making it, scientists, but much like the atom bomb, now we have a lasting problem on our hands.
I've seen enough Sci-Fi to know that laser guns are completely inaccurate in the hands of the bad guys- so we needed worry... ... unless we are the bad guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What police and mil do in their own nation stays in their own legal system.
Re:Not even remotely close to 'first' (Score:5, Funny)
1955??? In a backpack? The first operational laser was in 1960 in a lab.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/... [uchicago.edu]
Yes, but time travel was invented in 2045.
Re: (Score:2)
The rate of maturation of high energy laser weapons has always fallen behind the rate of development of laser countermeasure systems - metallized foil chaff, persistent smoke cloud generators, high-scattering broadband paints.
Only the latter of which is of any use on a missile, and right now we're talking about laser point defense. You could maybe use some of that stuff with whole swarms of missiles, but simply forcing the enemy to fire everything they've got makes it worth adding point defense.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, many nations ignore treaties when it is in their advantage. W and Putin are good examples of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
also, certain kinds of anti missile laser weapons are forbidden according to certain anti-nuclear treaties, but if you want to know what happens when you ignore such treaties investigate the Reagan era 'star wars' program, where the president ordered exactly such a treaty be ignored. "I'm sure you are as familiar with the terrible fallout of that decision as I am, specifically and exactly _nothing_ happened, except of coarse all players become more cynical about he effectiveness of treaties".
Basically any