Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Phasers, Tasers and Stun Guns, oh my! 137

Posted by Hemos from the bang-bang-freeze-'em-up dept.
Thoth_Ptolemy writes "Here's an article on a ranged non-lethal weapon that freezes the targets body without killing them. Wonder how long it'll be until we can whack people with Light Sabers and such. I see a lot of potential for the SCA. " Geez-if I could have a copy for when Rob gets...frisky things would be much better in my day. To be fair, they haven't build a prototype yet, but the concept is just too neat.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Phasers, Tasers and Stun Guns, oh my! More

Phasers, Tasers and Stun Guns, oh my!

Comments Filter:

  • Interesting Concept (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A very interesting concept... using ionized gas as a conductor. There would, of course, be ways to circumvent this technology. If I understand it correctly, the laser would have to contact the skin in order to conduct the jolt. Clothing, gloves, and a helmet would be plenty of insulation to stop this weapon. I'm surprised at the low amperage, though. I would have expected it to be much, much higher. I also wonder about the other applications of "beaming" power over ionized gas. It's probably not very efficent, I guess, but it might be useful.

    sKroz

  • Re:This has potential (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "The idea of the ones that stop cars would also put an end to all those long dangerous car chases (although we would miss watching them on TV *smile*)."

    It's an interesting idea, but I'm very skeptical, simply from what the article says..."Herr says it could be tuned to wavelengths that destroy the
    microchips of motor cars, immobilising them in an instant." _What_ could be tuned? The frequency of the AC current? AC is not usually described in terms of wavelength. The laser light? How does the laser reach the microchip, unless it can shine through fiberglass and steel? (At that point, we'd be talking X-ray laser, not UV.) I don't think there's a "magic frequency" that destroys chips, anyway. In any case, how? You could probably disable a car's electronics just by zapping it with a large enough charge, but that has nothing to do with "tuning the wavelength", and I suspect it would take a _huge_ jolt to work on a car with a fiberglass or plastic body, neither of these being very good conductors, and in this case we're not exactly talking non-lethal anymore.

    Personally, I think this may never be more than a curiosity, the legal atmosphere (of the US, at least, and yes I know this is a GB invention) being what it is: the police will zap some poor sod who's just being unruly, and instead of just being temporarily paralyzed, he'll die (because he was high, had a heart condition, whatever), his family will sue for millions, and the police will decide to stick to known territory.

  • nonlethal weapons breed violence (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In my opinion "nonlethal weapons" will be subject to far more abuse than "lethal weapons" are now. Don't like the French? Declare war on them, it's safe!

  • So,... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ... finally the "Heartbreaker" got a little exposure. :-)

    I don't think the "potential for abuse" is really much of a conversation topic; frankly, trying to think of an allowable or moral use is quite difficult.

    And, just like the other "non-lethal" weapons, it almost certainly has serious side-effects, both short-term and long-term. (What about pacemakers?)

    If you put a weapon into the hands of law enforcement agencies, at some point not too far into the future, it *will* be used inappropriately, you can depend upon it. And the (percieved) lesser risk of a "non-lethal" weapon would be likely to increase the chance of it being used recklessly.

    Fortunately, there are a few technical hurdles to overcome before it actually becomes saleable, but it's only really a matter of time before someone starts selling these devices to somewhere with a less-than-squeaky-clean human-rights record.

    -- Kindfade.

  • Re:Very dangerous weapon (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Simple to build, but finding a ionizing laser that will provide a conductive path any distance that's useful is *extremely* expensive. Well, a couple grand at least. Too rich for my bones.. but I guess there's lots of people that that isn't too rich for.

    But, this should work. Meaning someone WILL do it :)

    Another technical note - these things are low current because the "conductive" path still has a reasonable resistance (remember power calculations in high school?). So, you take care of that by using SUPER high voltages and almost no current - I've zapped myself with a flyback transformer/multiplier box at about 20kV at next to no current, and it *hurt real bad*.

    In addition, the laser acts to get the conductive path set up. I don't think you'd NEED the laser after the path is running, because super high voltages ionize air all by themselves. It's about getting a conductive path (directional) set up in the first place. I haven't done much experimenting though, so I don't know how accurate this is.

    Another technical note: These devices will only work against things that are not protected by a grounded shield. Zapping your computer would be a bad idea, but it wouldn't do anything, so long as the case was on the box. :) You'd probably have to hit bare flesh as well and assume there's enough of a path for the current to return to ground on.

    Off the market HV stun guns are a great pocket sized HV source, too. Just need that damn laser :)

    Steve
    n706@unb.ca
  • Not to whine about this, but:

    When the ____ Amendment was written, the founding fathers were thinking about ______, not ______. They couldn't anticipate the possibility that technology could make ______ possible. For that reason, the ____ Amendment doesn't apply.

    Fill it the blanks with either of the two choices for each:

    1st/2nd
    printing presses/muzzle-loaders
    the Internet/semiautomatic rifles
    kids downloading porn/assault weapons killing kids
    1st/2nd


    Now *you* tell me where the Constitutional difference is. Hint: There isn't one. If you argue or believe that the 2nd Amendment is limited to farmers carrying single-shots, then you implicitly argue or believe that the 1st Amendment is limited to those same farmers cranking out revolutionary pamphlets. Lose one freedom and you will lose the other. Get it?

  • Phaser fun (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @07:41AM (#1897933)
    Oh I would just LOVE to have a phaser even if it only stunned people. How easy it would be to mug people then... *zap*. You'll be walking down the street one minute and out cold the next and wake up with your wallet gone.

  • Tesla already thought of this.. (Score:4)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @08:02AM (#1897934)
    Nikola Tesla described many such beam weapons that use UV light (no lasers then) to ionize a path in air and then use a high-voltage-high-frequency pulse to send the "shock" or "stun". This was also the priniciple behind many "Star Wars" weapons.

    I would think that anyone with access to a physics lab could hack something together with a UV flashlamp, or a UV laser or better ($$$). A tesla coil would make a great source of power, and there are many miniturized or even solid-state tesla coils available. (www.amazing1.com) You only need a conductive path through the air for a VERY short time to zap someone, and you can get a pretty good charge from a tesla coil - even a small one.

    Those of you south of the border might have some problems with the ATF though hehe.

    If anyone has access to the flashlamps/lasers that could directionally ionize air, send me a msg and I'll share some tesla coil circuitry :).

    Steve
    n706@unb.ca
  • I think a simple defense against this could be aluminum foil, ground yourself and shield against the RF part of it.

    It seems very similar to Quake's lightning gun, infact I once suggested that this might be how it worked (drunk, in a pub. The topics you get are amazing)
  • Too much acid, man. Too much much acid.
    ----------------- ------------ ---- --- - - - -
  • Especially with mirrors. Sit right around a corner. Be even cooler if you could install one in something like a camera. :) Pretty much the ultimate spy tool. Freeze an entire army with a huge mirror and a kickin' battery (maybe a lightening rod).

  • You probably skimmed the wrong article, too.


    --
  • Vital, involuntary muscles, like the heart and the diaphragm, are not affected because they are protected by a greater thickness of body tissue.

    Still, I'd think taking a shot to the back of the head from one of those things [min.net] could seriously ruin your day.

  • I'm sorry, but I stopped reading the article after the first few sentences. I can't stand reading published material (even if it is published on the Internet) that is full of typos. (For those of you that are lost, Defence is actually spelled Defense!) How am I supposed to take this article seriously when they can't even spell?

    That's probably why people in the UK (where this article came from) and Australia find it so hard to take the USA seriously. I mean, a whole nation that can't even spell? Defense?? Z's instead of S's?? OR's instead of OUR's??? Come on!

  • If you used one you would be charged with battery...

    Sorry, but I had to.
  • >Yeah, and the police will be that much more inclined to USE this thing than fire a bullet.

    Indeed, it makes a handy torture device, both for bad cops and bad non-cops. Haven't tasers been outlawed in many states for this very reason?
  • I, for one, appreciate a non-lethal alternative on both the legal and non-legal sides of the coin. Is it possible that law enforcement would be less hesitant to use these weapons than guns? Sure. But the person on the other end would also be less dead.
    In a way, I think this makes it more dangerous than a gun.

    Like chemical weapons, it sounds like it would be fairly easy to protect against this weapon if you expected it. And like chemical weapons, its primary use would be against civilians who were not expecting it. It would work great on demonstrators.

    Considering the level of police brutality in the US this weapon seems quite dangerous. Consider the cases of police applying pepper spray to handcuffed people's eyes with Q-tips (specifically the case with Earth First in Oregon, but this has been done on other occasions as well). Remember watching Rodney King lying on the ground, being hit with a taser over and over? Giving these people more tools to cause pain is very dangerous.

    Being able to torture people at an increased distance isn't a positive force. And this is clearly a tool of torture.

    Reading the Amnesty International 1998 Report on the US [amnesty.org] is interesting (the police stuff starts about halfway down). The AI Report on the NYPD [amnesty.org] probably also has lots of interesting thoughts, but at 260K I haven't read it.

  • Excuse me? Since when is "stun anything that moves" a good police policy?

    Gotta agree with this. I would assume they would only use it if someone resisted arrest or during a riot of some sort. If they are resisting arrest, then they are comitting a crime and it would be warranted. Other than that, lawsuits are likely to ensue.

    Hmm. Police zap moving vehicle. Moving vehicle, now without power brakes and steering, continues down the road at its previous velocity until it plows into something.

    Actually, the car wouldn't be able to maintain its velocity for long... it would slow down pretty quick. As for power steering, well.. yeah.. that would be tough. I've had power steering go out on me before and it's not fun, but it's still driveable if you don't freak out and lose control.

    Though, wouldn't it be bad if the anti-car raygun accidentally hit a human being like a random pedestrian?

    This was something I wondered about too. Seems like that thing would be way too dangerous to use. Police aren't all that accurate sometimes. I wouldn't want them firing that thing anywhere near me.

  • If you've ever been shocked by an electric fence you will realize that electricity of a sufficiently high voltage can return to ground even if you are wearing shoes. My neighbor installed an electric fence to prevent her dogs from jumping out of her yard, and even though it was only 800 volts it could shock you even if you were wearing shoes.

    However, this means that the scene in Jurassic Park where the kid climbing on the electric fence was zapped when they turned it on couldn't have happened, because he wasn't touching the ground at the time.

  • Just a thought, imagine a highly charged metal plate or copper mesh. The instant the ion path touches you, you get the freee effect from the stun gun, the other guy gets a lethal jolt. The same could happen if someone uses one around high voltage equipment and misses the target.

    An interesting idea though, if the bugs can be worked out.

  • Using this during a thunderstorm would probably be equivalent to carrying around a 30' steel extension ladder.

    In fact, a handy defense would be to position a very high-potential source near the target. If the path of least resistance leads to the weapon's muzzle, it would be curtains for the would-be stunner. . .
  • Or a faraday cage.

    Wear clothing containing a fine copper (or gold) wire mesh, leading to a conductor to ground (a metal plate on the bottom of your shoe), and from a stunning-type charge, you'd probably walk away unscathed.
  • Carbon fiber is conductive -- need I say more?
  • Actually this is high frequency AC... your rubber-soled shoes on cement will be a lovely ground...

    Gotta love capacitive coupling... :-)
  • no return path necessary. your shoes are the return path to earth.

    Same reason why getting zapped by the business end of a flyback hurts... you are capacitively coupled to ground through your clothes, shoes, whatever gets you to earth.
  • oh GAWD

    grooooooooooooooooannnnnn

    that is a BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD pun :-)

    Thank you.
  • Wait... let me get this straight... So gratuitous wars against France would be a bad thing?
  • Just like a phaser, it appears that you can set it to "kill" as well as "stun" just by upping the amperage. According to the article, 250 milliamps would be sufficient.

    Interesting, I wonder how much power you could draw? I remember reading a recent article on military investigations of a weapon powerful enough to be a tank-killer that worked on similar principles. The lasers spot ionized the air in a line down to a target tank. (ionized only at the focal point, so the lasers don't have to be mounted on the target) on a stormy day, the lightning then follows the path of least resistance...
  • Of course AC has a wavelength, it Alternates between polarities typically at a rate of 60 Hz (in the U.S.). Nicola Tesla experimented extensively with AC at extremely high frequencies with a variety of results.
  • Every American schoolkid should carry one.

    However, I guess it'll only be a matter of time before the bad guys start wearing lightening conductors.

    Regards, Ralph.
  • I think you make a good point -- the "taser" effect they're shooting for needs a circuit to do any good. With a normal taser, if you're missed by one of the probes, you're probably not going down.

    I wonder how they take care of that? Two lasers creating two conductive paths? I'd think the ionized air would stick around long enough outside the beam to short the circuit. I can't imagine they're hoping someone is going to be barefoot, or grounding themselves some other way...

    Sounds like something that would make a hell of a security system -- two ionized beam paths in in a doorway, far enough apart not to short themselves, but close enough to give a good zap going through.

    I'd bet these are more hazardous than they sound. I can't imagine the shock would do much through clothing, so they've got to aim for exposed skin -- ie, the face. I'd bet you'd have a hell of a lawsuit on your hands if a cop zapped you in the face with one of them and you ended up with blindness or seizures as a result.

    (Mental note: wear goggles and a wetsuit next time I'm crossin' the cops!) ;)
  • Oh great, not can it only cause "irritation and swelling (read as severe sunburn) it can "cut corneas." What are the long term effects of a concentrated ultraviolet beam?

    Getting an xray does not cause irritation due to the low levels. Now they have UV lasers that will now penetrate the skin. Great.
  • There should be more emphasis on ethics in education. Technology that has potential for disaster can be very expensive when it comes to long term investments.

    I admit there are very good uses for radiation, but shooting people with UV light that can cause instant burns is not cool. There are legit uses for radiation, but zapping people with UV is not one of them.

    I used to work surveying oil wells down in Texas and we used some mighty powerful sources, including neutron and gamma. When you want to find oil in a shaft miles deep in a hostile environment, radiation bouncing off hydrocarbons to detect the oil is much more attractive than drilling a hundred fold more in a hit and miss manner. We used radiation below ground and not directed toward people. It allowed us to save money and minimize unnecessary damage to the envirnment.

    Radiation should not be used to maintain public order. Cancer is a horrible public relations possibility.

  • In the wrong hands... (Score:3)

    by Mickey Jameson ( 3209 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @07:51AM (#1897960)
    This is freakin' scary stuff. Like previously stated, muggings would be of great ease, and corrupt government figures abusing it as well...
    Bad cops bad cops. Whatcha gonna do. Whatcha gonna do when they freeze ray you?
  • I'm not all that versed in ion canons, other than what little is explained in The Empire Strikes Back, but...

    ... isn't it just enough to ground yourself to not be affected by such a stun gun? I mean, walking around with a computer wrist ground arrached to your ankle, and being in contact with the ground?
  • Probably a bit less severe than the long term effects of a gun.
  • It's not the current, it's the frequency. The high voltage is also kind of a side effect as IU understand it. You need the correct freq and it really f's up the nervous system. Uncle Sam has been playing with these for some time now ...

    /dev
  • Incidentally, a guy by the name of Bill Beaty thought of using pressurized water instead of ionized air, and doping it with various things to get different ranges and colors. He suggested using WD-40 and magnesium instead of water, for example.

    www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/ideas.html#three

    No, I don't thing he's ever tried any of this.

    This guy is just cool. Loads of good (and/or dubious) engineering and electrical information too. Heaping piles of "here's some crack-pot theory: see if you can get it to work" type stuff, with diagrams/designs. Also has quite a bit of rational discussion about electricity, science education, Tesla Coils, you name it.
  • After reading some SF in high school that depicted a similar weapon (more lethal of course) I have been trying to figure out how to make one work. I am still not sure if you would need 2 beams for a complete arc (eg. Jacobs Ladder effect) or if you could use one and complete it with the ground (as the ground?). IIRC the books (trilogy? or quadrology?) started with one called "Cobra"; I think another one is called "Cobra Strike". Hmmm, need to check into this again....

    Walter
  • This would make things even worse.
    You need to be INSIDE the shield (wrapping yourself in aluminium foil should suffice).

  • Safer than current weaponry?

    Actually, his pun was really, really good. Very subtle, fit perfectly in context without any awkward wording, etc. I'll admit I almost didn't notice it.

    In fact, it's just conceivable that it was truly unintentional. It does happen, you know. Unfortunately, we'll never know -- even if he replies one way or the other, who would believe him?

    David Gould

  • What if, instead of a single beam and the ground, the weapon used two parallel beams, just far enough apart to avoid them shorting each other, to form a circuit? Then being grounded wouldn't make much difference, would it? The current hurts whatever it passes through on the way from one beam's contact point to the other's. Now your mesh would just have to catch both beams before they hit you, right? Wouldn't it have to be like this, anyway? Otherwise, the current would have to go through the user, and he'd get exactly the same jolt, unless it also goes through the user's shoe. I sure wouldn't want to stun someone by volunteering myself as the ground wire. Even so, it sounds like all parties involved are going to build up a pretty painful static charge.

    By the way, have you ever put on headphones after building up a static charge? That hurts. Maybe I just have a lot of capacitance, but around the office here, I often get blue sparks when I touch stuff, and whenever I roll my chair, I'll start hearing a buzz in my headphones. Quick! touch the table leg, or else -- ZZOT! It can't be good for the Powerbook, either.

    David Gould
  • This thing is simply too dangerous, and it can be severly abused. (Look at all the shocking weapons out there; they were intended as self-defence, but who uses them?)

    Imagine `accidentally' hitting something smaller (ie. a child). Since there is `a thinner layer of body tissue', the heart will perhaps not be protected, and the heart fails. How funny... Hope somebody will stop this thing, or make it very restricted.

    /* Steinar */
  • Actually, no, the Federalist Papers don't. One must also consider the context of when the 2nd Amendment was written; most of the American soldiers in the first few years of the Revolution were farmers carrying weapons that they, not the fledgling US government, owned. The Framers wanted protection of the right to bear arms so that the people could overthrow the government if stopped representing them. (The hydrogen bomb sorta ruins all of that--see the relevant passage in Snow Crash.) Ultimately, compromises must be made--the NRA and such must accept that unlimited availability of firearms is not a Good Thing, but the gun-banners need to understand the legitimacy of the firearm-owning tradition in this country, for hunting and personal defense. (Notwithstanding all of that, a good gun is a hell of a lot more reliable than this thing is going to be. I don't anticipate the cops trading in their Berettas any time soon.)
  • If I understand the physics correctly, the
    only safe people would be the ones where the
    aluminium foil hats and underwear.... ( and
    everywhere else as well)
  • Indeed. I read about the device about a year ago also in the british New Scientist magazine. According to that article (and common sense), the non-lethal aspect of the weapon is subject to which wattage/frequency is used. Thus you could set it to simply disable an opponent, cause them pain, kill them, etc. Gee I love the way Star Trek is leading us into the future :o) "Set your phasers to stun!"

    (We have the bridge and other bits and pieces from the original series in our local museum at the moment (in Wellington, NZ). We also have props from the new series and I have to say I was greatly ammused to see a real needle-less injection device (probably _inspired_ by Star Trek) which is now in use by medical practitioners.)

  • ROTFL!! (Score:1)

    by Thag ( 8436 )
    That's great!

    Jon

  • Unfortunately, yes. (Score:3)

    by Thag ( 8436 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @08:25AM (#1897975) Homepage
    Cops wouldn't have to be so worried about the other guy pulling a gun on them, that they instead overreact and become far too harse when the person was being compliant. Instead, if this is developed and has no sideeffects, the officer can simply stun the guy, handcuff them, and then wait for them to wake up.


    Excuse me? Since when is "stun anything that moves" a good police policy?

    Also, I really wonder how well this will work against someone wearing a winter coat. They have problems with felons not falling down when hit with conventional tasers, too.

    The idea of the ones that stop cars would also put an end to all those long dangerous car chases (although we would miss watching them on TV *smile*).


    Hmm. Police zap moving vehicle. Moving vehicle, now without power brakes and steering, continues down the road at its previous velocity until it plows into something. Nope, sounds just like a CHiPs episode! ;)

    Still, it would be useful for preventing people from taking off in a car.

    Though, wouldn't it be bad if the anti-car raygun accidentally hit a human being like a random pedestrian?

    Jon

  • Why would there be a constitutional fight in the US? The supreme court has consistently held (3 seperate cases this century) that the second ammendment does NOT guarentee a right to bear arms outside of the context of a state militia. I gather that the Federalist papers support this interpretation as well.

    Just because the gun nuts shout this loudly doesn't make it true.
  • >that is a BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD pun :-)
    shockingly bad!
  • How much UV do you need to ionize air? In nature, you need lightning, or sunshine in the thinner air above/in the IONOSPHERE. And now you're going to build something portable that generates that level of UV in air at sea-level density? Look at the size and cost of lights used in sports stadiums that only approximate daylight. A coherent beam like a laser will keep the energy provided in a straight line, but I don't see how it can be enough energy to cause ionization at any reasonable range. Anybody out there have any information on how many coulombs are required per liter of air to ionize? (Sorry, chemistry and physics were a long time ago.)

  • High powered UV Lasers are not a big deal, though...I have seen home built kits for a 100,000 Watt UV laser using only a big ass capacitor, ignition coil, vacum pump, spark gap, and battery. Granted it's only on for a few nanoseconds, but that would be enough.

    A little bit better equipment, and different trigger mechanism, and its forseeable to have a 1000W laser for a few milliseconds. Get your self a high voltage inverter for the 100mA stun current, and you are so all set.

    I'm more concerned with what happens when you get one of these babies running. Sure, the cops could use it to stun the allged assailant, or the alleged assailant can use it to escape from the cops. All this is proving is that the tools are getting better, but how they're used may need to catch up to the actual technology.

  • Reminds me of a SF short story in Analog.

    The protanganist (a programmer) used to take a small chainsaw to meetings, when suits made idiotic remarks, he would start it meaningfully.

  • Check this out! http://geekmafia.dynip.com/pla/bumbox.ht ml [dynip.com]
    xm@GeekMafia.dynip.com [http://GeekMafia.dynip.com/]
  • Would putting up a fight count as resisting arrest?
    (Sorry!)
  • I know people often like things big in the US, but unless you have rather large metres then you are off by at least 2 orders of magnitude. Light takes 0.03us to go 10m, not 10us - a factor of 300 out.
  • This is great, as it could replace the use of the more lethal weapons out there, and would also help curb police brutality ...

    Cops wouldn't have to be so worried about the other guy pulling a gun on them, that they instead overreact and become far too harse when the person was being compliant. Instead, if this is developed and has no sideeffects, the officer can simply stun the guy, handcuff them, and then wait for them to wake up.

    No worries.

    The idea of the ones that stop cars would also put an end to all those long dangerous car chases (although we would miss watching them on TV *smile*).

    Plus it would just be too cool once someone makes one in a original star trek phaser style casing :)

    (And yes, the SCA would be VERY interested in this *smile*)
  • In a similar vein, would not firing a UV laser at an approaching thundercloud force it to discharge? You'd need a large Faraday cage/lightning rod around the laser to protect it, but otherwise lightning storms could be controlled and directed.


    This has been thought of, and is in development as a way of keeping lightning away from airports. There was an article in Scientific American about this a while back.


    The laser doesn't need to be shielded; the beam is focused instead of parallel, which means that only air at the focal point is ionized (a similar scheme is described above). A series of pulses are emitted as the laser is swept from ground to sky (or vice versa), and you wind up (hopefully) with an ionized trail at a distance from the laser.

  • Yeah, the deer could use its razor-sharp claws, er - hooves and slash you to death! "Where is my high powered laser-sighted assault rifle?" you will cry as the vicious herbivore sprays your blood everywhere. Thinking about taking on a flock of ducks just makes me shudder. We don't need no stinkin' technology!
  • Well, instead of just human targets, endangered species, or animals who end up in dangerous areas (for them or humans) could be stunned and transported to safety... Cool!
  • IBM has the patent for this online. It's patent number 5675103 for those of you who are interested. Here [ibm.com] is a link.
  • The patent for this gives some theoretical numbers for the power of the laser. I'm don't remember enough physics to check it for accuracy, but you might. Take a look at page 5 of the patent. It's number 5675103 at www.patents.ibm.com [ibm.com].



    According to the author, "A reasonable power density, pulse duration, and pulse repitition rate for this laser is 5 megawatts per square centimeter, 10 nanoseconds, and 200 pulses per second, respectively." There is more detail in the patent, so you may want to check it out.
  • As an American, I am surprised by the reaction to this. "It's a very dangerous weapon...It has the potential for human rights abuse...Think of all the crimes that will occur because of it." Yet we live in a country where guns are probably as prevelant as televisions. If guns don't have the potential for abuse, nothing does.

    I, for one, appreciate a non-lethal alternative on both the legal and non-legal sides of the coin. Is it possible that law enforcement would be less hesitant to use these weapons than guns? Sure. But the person on the other end would also be less dead. And on the other side of the legal arena, I would much rather be held up at taser-point than at gun-point.

    Legally, I would suspect that unjustified use of these weapons would be considered assault and battery, which should be enough of a deterrent to keep people from going around zapping each other for "fun."

  • I'm sorry, but I stopped reading the article after the first few sentences. I can't stand reading published material (even if it is published on the Internet) that is full of typos. (For those of you that are lost, Defence is actually spelled Defense!) How am I supposed to take this article seriously when they can't even spell? I'll admit that I can't spell worth a flip, but that is why I spell check my work and have others read it before I publish anything. Speaking of which, anyone wanna proofread my thesis next week? :o)
    ---
  • Absolutely NOT! I don't want British spelling in my thesis. I am, after all, an American... even if I do happen to live in Sweden. I don't have anything against British English, but I'd rather stick to my native language instead ;o)
    ---

  • Wow. (Score:3)

    by jwriney ( 16598 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @07:55AM (#1897994) Homepage
    I NEED one of these. Perfect for those boring meetings.

    Corporate Type: "And so, through the process of structured quantitative technology incubation, we can proactively synergise our value proposition to facilitate the globalization of..."

    *click*

    *fzzrrrt*

    --John Riney
    jwriney@awod.com
  • It would also make hunting a real pain in the (*#$*^$* ! Imagine usuing your XJ-11 stun/imobilizer on a deer, it goes down, you go to collect it, and suddenly it gores you! "Gee, I sure miss my Remington", you'll be thinking.

    -Markvs

    ..."shoot the deer. The auto accident you prevent may be your own! Eat the deer. They're great with french fries!"
  • Either not hit a deer with your car, are vegitarian, or don't understand that if you have too many of a critter in an area, they get sick and die. It's more humane to kill a deer with one shot and then USE the meat rather than let it starve to death because there are too many of them in a particular area.
  • Yeah, but standing inside one of those cages would surely be neat, assuming you were wearing ear muffs, had an oxygen tank, and welder's goggles.

    Wouldn't want our eardrums to explode, to breath in pure ozone, or to be blinded by zillions of volts, now, would we?

    Still... It would be impressive...

    I wonder if I could build me a UV laser =)

    Look out, I'll prolly be on the evening news for frying myself with lightning.


    -AS
  • That would only disqualify it if the HV source were undirected and just took the path of least resistence, which would actually be the user as you have pointed out. Think lightning, I guess.

    However, currently tasers work fine except they are limited by their short range; the taser *I think* completes it's own circuit unless it touches another individual, in which the circuit involving the earth and the other individual is much more attractive.

    Essentially if you attached a UV laser in front of a taser, you'd get this effect. Two lasers in parallel is even better for providing an ionized path because it's just so much larger in diameter, but is unnecessary for its functioning.


    -AS

  • Anti-storm technology... (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Shepherd ( 17338 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @12:42PM (#1897999) Homepage
    In a similar vein, would not firing a UV laser at an approaching thundercloud force it to discharge? You'd need a large Faraday cage/lightning rod around the laser to protect it, but otherwise lightning storms could be controlled and directed.

    Wouldn't that be neat? Seeing arcs of lightning, as performance art?


    -AS

  • Umm... (Score:3)

    by zunger ( 17731 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @04:09PM (#1898000)
    Something seems potentially dangerous here. A UV laser powerful enough to ionize a path of air might not slice straight through your cornea, but it's sure as hell not likely to be healthy.

    A back-of-the envelope calculation: The beam has to ionize a path say about a micrometer on a side and about ten meters long. If a small current (so that we don't fry the guy at the other end of the Invisible Death Ray) isn't going to dissipate, we're going to need a conductivity of maybe 10^7 (Ohm-m)^-1. (like a metal) Conductivity is approximately n*q^2*t/m, where n is the charge carrier density, q is the charge of the carriers, t is the relaxation time (about 1.5ns; that's the decay time for the 2p state of Hydrogen) and m is the carrier mass. (About the electron mass, since air is an insulator) This means we're going to need a charge carrier density of about 2*10^23 per cubic meter, or a total of about 2*10^18 ions. Air is mostly nitrogen, which has a first ionization energy of 1400 kJ/mol, so the total amount of energy the laser would have to deliver is about 5 Joules. It would have to deliver this in about 10 microseconds (the time for light to travel the ten meters from the guy with the gun to the poor schmuck on the other end) so we need powers on the order of a megawatt for ten microseconds.

    (End of calculation part) So practically? 5J in 10us is well above the level that can damage the eyeball even from indirect exposure. (Class IV) If the beam is UV, that makes it worse rather than better - the eye can absorb invisible light less than visible, and you can't see if you're accidentally going to zap yourself with it. So unless this calculation is off by a lot (several orders of magnitude) then I'm not sure how this beam isn't going to be a lot more dangerous than the makers intend. I'm getting kinda suspicious of their claims.

  • Uh, "Defence" is the extremely common alternate spelling in the UK. Notice that this article is from the British Sunday Times.
    I agree that trying to read stuff that's misspelled is hard to do, but it seems like you're overreacting a bit.
  • you don't know how hard you had me laughing with that statement.....
  • does anyone else think of Command And Conquer - Red Alert when we talk of this???

    bbbzap..bzapbzap...
  • A web search on "Richard Scheps" reveals that he's associated with the "Space and Naval Warfare Systems Ctr., San Diego", whatever that is. :) Looks like his area of expertise/interest is high powered lasers.

    A search of the ISI Citation Database of reveals he has about 28 publications to his name, mostly related to lasers.

    So, at least this person exists: just maybe not where the article says he does.
  • This is not exactly new, although it hasn't been mentioned on Slashdot before. About a year ago there has been some media coverage of a LA based company working on a phaser based on the same principle.

  • Giving these people more tools to cause pain is very dangerous.

    So what's your solution? No, we should not condone police brutality in any form, but the fact of the matter is that most police are not guilty of these crimes. Should we take a good, nonlethal solution away from the cops doing their duty just because of some bad apples? Do we punish the many for the actions of the few? Well, then, up against the wall, mister! Your neighbor killed someone, so the potential for your killing someone is higher. As such, you're being arrested for the common good!

  • As we all know, visions of the future have always shown everybody wearing sparkly metal clothing -- finally we now know why! To prevent muggings by phaser! It was never for fashion afterall!

  • " The Progressive [progressive.org]" ran an expose about taser weapons like this (the direct-contact kind) back in November of 1997... it's not available online, but you can find a summary as #5 on this page [sonoma.edu].
  • This device isn't really any sort of "freeze ray" as the article implies. I think whoever wrote the article just liked the sound of it. This device is just a method of delivering an electric shock at a distance without wires. Tasers already exist that can do this by firing a dart with wires trailing back to the hand held unit. In any case, the idea of a device that will deliver an electric charge along a conduit of laser-ionized air is hardly a new one. A patent will probably be issued regardless.
    There still exists the problem of range, of course. A lot of charge is going to be lost over long distances. This creates a rather large problem if you're going to use this to subdue people without killing them, because the amount of power you'll have to use to hit someone at twenty feet will probably kill a person at five feet. I suppose this could be solved by building in a rangefinder that varies the charge depending on the distance. Not that such problems don't exist with modern stun guns. A stun gun that will be effective against someone who weighs 300 pounds might kill someone who weighs 120 pounds. A more likely situation is that your stun gun won't work on a 300 pound attacker except to cause momentary pain.
    Anyhow, I don't see how it will help at all in cryonics. I don't think it will even be particularly useful as some form of riot gear, which is what the article seems to imply it would be useful for. Much heavier duty versions might find use as weapons though. Who knows, the technology might have completely different uses. For example, it might be useful as a method of delivering power to remote devices, although maybe not since you can already do that easily with microwaves. Well, it'll probably be pretty neat in any case, even if it isn't all that useful.
  • That is the British spelling. Maybe a Londoner should proofread your thesis.
  • Let's see, in which SF classics were the following mentioned?
    1. Broadcast power to a whole planet by firing an ionizing laser down through the ionosphere to the ground. Laser pulses create temporary conductive channel, causing huge current pulse which receivers can tap for power. Destroys existing power grid. Pulse through the atmosphere creates Chee-ops sound.
    2. Innocent squirt guns converted to rebel weapon by sending electricity through two water streams.
    3. Drawing electricity from the Sun creates ionized channel through atmosphere. Author mentioned huge amount of ozone made it impractical as a power source on Earth.
    4. Using conductive studs on front of missile to burn through skin of spaceship.
    5. An illegal device which stimulates the brain pleasure center from a distance.
  • I wonder how long it will be before somebody creates an insulated wire mesh vest that sends a lethal voltage back across the same ionized channel. Liquid latex would definately have some advantages as well.

  • Back in high school we had a small Tesla coil for use in various physics demonstrations. Being the rather crazy idiot I was in those days, I decided to hold the output of the Tesla coil in my right hand, then pick up a copper pipe with my left hand and touch it to the radiator in the classroom, thereby grounding myself. I have never been in so much pain in my entire life. Well, actually, when I broke my tailbone skydiving it hurt more, but you get the point.

    Don't know how you'd do this reliably with a remote device, but I can guarantee you that putting up a fight will be the last thing on someone's mind if you manage to do it. Convulsions will do that.


  • Stop it, you two!

    Both of you are grounded!

    *duck*
  • ...charged with?

    "About 25 milliamps, sir."
  • Grounded chain mail? Wearable farrady cage? Something that sends a bigger charge back up the beam and zaps the shooter?
  • Tesla coils, in my understanding, operate at a very high frequency. While that's what makes their discharge coronas so pretty, it changes the current flow properties so that it pretty much sweeps over the surface of the skin. Dunno how useful that would be for stunning.

    Also, to those surprised at the low amperage, don't be. It takes very little amperage to kill a human being.

    Volts jump, amps kick.
  • If I was designing an electric fence I would probably stick a few grounded conductors in between the live ones. I don't want no pesky kids stealing my dinosaurs.
  • Wasn't that the idea behind the microwave power plants in Sim City 2000?
  • > This is great, as it could replace the use of
    > the more lethal weapons out there, and would
    > also help curb police brutality ...

    I'm not sure if "curb" is the appropriate word here. Try "increase." It's bad enough, the basic human rights that police rob now (many get away with it, too), imagine what'll happen if they have these things. They'll shoot on a whim.

    I remember the time I got pulled over for having long hair. He even admitted that.

    Plus, you absolutely *know* that people other than cops will have them. Here's an incredibly short list of things that could happen, some of them already mentioned:

    mugging
    armed robbery
    carjacking
    rape
    kidnapping
    ....

    And the list goes on.

  • Ever see the Maxell commercial of Ella Fitzgerald (I think it was her, it was a while..) breaking a glass with her voice? I've seen it numerous times in physics classes.

    Anyway, programmable microcontrollers that use EPROM are commonly erased with UV light (PIC and 8051 are notable examples). This is for prototyping, however. For production, OTPs (One Time Programmables) are used. They have the exact same makeup, save the clear erasing window. I saw a discussion a a PIC list somewhere about some of the people on the list who were experimenting with erasing the OTPs. They were trying x-rays, high-intensity UV, all at different wavelengths, with some success (managed to erase them, didn't work again, ie: destroyed).

    So there are magic frequencies that destroy chips.
  • About 5 years ago, I was in the USAF, and a friend described some research that he'd seen about a free-electron laser. It seems that electrons can be made to "surf" the output beam. I never saw anything myself, but this sounds strikingly similar to the effect he described.

    Now, I have seen demonstrated microwave EMP devices that are capable of destroying electronics. (Discovery channel, I think) It was a semi-trailer sized device vs. a model helicopter -- fried the RC circuits. Helicopter stopped flying. Demonstrated Range: no more than 10 feet.

    There are also "land mine" style EMP devices: Looks like a rubber cow pie with 4 ~18 inch antennae sticking out of it. 50Kv to the undercarriage of an auto, then no more computer. Car stops running, rolls to a stop. Anyone read their owner's manual lately? Most likely, it'll tell you to unplug the computer before doing any arc welding. Same thing! One caveat though: a car without a computer is immune!

    Now, as to the range of this thing: "target up to 100 metres away..." If memory serves, 10Kv will initiate a 1 inch jump at STP (standard temperature and pressure). A meter is 39.37 inches, thus to cover 100 meters, that needs almost 40 million volts! Granted, not that difficult to generate, but definitely difficult to direct / control. This laser thingie must be really lowering the conductive resistance of the air if they say it can be built into a suitcase size at this time! What keeps the operator conscious?

    Current taser and stun gun implementations operate at 30 - 50Kv. I think the frequency is rather high, on the order of 1000 Hz. Direct contact is required. The air-taser operates with nearly the same properties, the only exception being air-propelled, wire-trailing barbs that run the risk of attaching to your opponent. The police model is different only by the fact that it's propelled by .45 caliber blanks. Range for both models does not exceed ~30 feet.

    The social effects of this device are definitely scary. We put a lot of criminals in jail on increased charges through "creative prosecution." Someone uses a car to intentionally kill someone -- it becomes (in addition to murder) "assault with a deadly weapon." What happens when the weapon is implicitly designed to be only incapacitating and nonlethal?

    What about the Second Amendment implications? If organized government agencies can have them, then some citizens are going to want them "to protect themselves against government overzealousness." What then? Or will this be treated like automatic weapons? "The founding fathers didn't intend this, therefore only (pick your agency) will be eligible to receive them."

    The criminal element is frequently characterized by cowardly actions. It takes a rare person to walk up to a victim with a stun gun, ZAP!, and the victim wakes up minus a wallet/purse. (Notice that you don't hear about this much?) The risk is that their intended victim will be similarly armed and (possibly) quicker on the draw.

    Now, with this technology, a criminal will not have to close the distance to their victim, and thus will not risk being seen. I fear that this will make some criminals very much more bold.

    (Tangent mode ON)

    At the University of Connecticut in Storrs, there was an incident a few years ago where an individual entered a dorm, walked up to a male resident, and asked "Want a real buzz?" (Or some such nonsense). At that point he pressed a stun-gun into the victim's ribs, triggered it, and took off. The attacker was quickly mobbed by other residents. I expect that his stun-gun did little against an incensed mob, and he was quickly turned over to campus police.

    This is the only time I've heard of offensive use of "energy weapons"

    (Tangent mode OFF)

    You see, there are stupid people out there. They do things like this, they stereotype Goths, nerds and geeks. Imagine the ruckus that would happen if the media started portraying each and every one of us as an armed and dangerous stun-rifle-toting maniac! I can honestly see things like this happening:

    1. (Speaker: HS rent-a-cop, as he picks up a woozy and dazed student) Hey kid, I thought that flashlight was a weapon. You ought to know better!

    2. (Older beat cop, nearing retirement) Sorry I had to stun ya. Here's your jaywalking ticket.
      (Victim, trying to catch breath)...why...did...you...?
      (Cop) You were trying to evande me!
      (Victim)..what...???
      (Cop) You were walking away faster than I could!

    Okay, perhaps I'm a bit paranoid. I just finished watching a series on when cops go bad... perhaps you caught it? No one is perfect, and it's very dangerous to put easily abused power into the hands of authority without any checks and balances. Sometimes I wish we would put as much energy into real problems as we put into weapons!

  • Yeah, and the police will be that much more inclined to USE this thing than fire a bullet.

    No thanks!
  • I disagree. I think 'A Long Long Time ago in a Galazy Far Far away...' refers to the rumored "Last Chapter" (7, 8, 9) and how that the movies are really just peices of a "Book" (similar to how Tolkien's Intros refer to the Red Book of Westmarch) and I think that the whole Star Wars universe is narrated by someone even further into the future than the movies. Its sad that rumor has it that the "Last Chapter" may not be produced...
  • It seems to me that if governments did get their hands on this technology we would in effect all be droids fitted with restraining bolts. whenever someone stepped out of line,.... *zzzzzzap* i dont know about you all but it sure seems kinda scary to think that we could all in effect be slaves to our own government. well its not like we arent already, but it adds more of a science fiction theme on it. :)
  • Hey, it would make for safer muggings!

    Also, I guess you could use a mirror to protect yourself. Just point it back at the user and zap them :)

  • Very dangerous weapon (Score:5)

    by Guinnessy ( 49129 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @08:18AM (#1898037) Homepage
    I actually broke this story on New Scientist (1 November 1997 'Set phasers to shock') so I'm very interested to see the Sunday Times take on it. For example, they don't mention that Herr's patent says you can kill someone in under 2 seconds with this device, nor that you can torture an individual over 100 m's away using it. The potential for abuse is very high and its also very easy to build, a lot easier than he describes in the article.

    Considering the UK's record at shipping this sort of stuff out to dodgy regimes I would be quite worried.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Close