From: Chuck Kuecker (ckuecker@mcs.net)
Date: Sat Oct 02 1999 - 20:46:52 MDT
At 09:12 PM 10/2/1999 EDT, Glen Finney wrote:
> Hmmm, I wonder if the UV laser causes some ionization of the air to
direct
>the current? Does anyone know more about this? If you could use a laser
>instead of wires, it would be a major innovation to my way of thinking,
since
>you would be able to hit your target pretty quickly....I just wonder how
much
>voltage you would need to get through any clothing enough to stun.
>
Speaking as one who actually tried building a wireless stun gun, I have two
comments about the 'UV laser' approach:
First, any laser powerful enough to ionize air is a weapon all in itself.
Even if it was only breifly pulsed, it takes quite a bit of energy to
ionize a column of air.
Second, to maintain the ionized channel long enough to conduct current will
take a large voltage to strike the plasma arc, and a large discharge
current to keep it lit. I doubt it will be possible to send the 'T-wave'
pulses as used in the original Taser product through this channel - it will
be more like a lightning bolt. Also, the fact that a return path is
required would either put the operator at risk in becoming part of the
circuit, or would require two ionized paths, parallel to each other and
fairly close together. What's to keep the current from taking the easy way
out and arcing right at the projector?
Before patent research found that I had been scooped by Jaycor (check out
their webpage for some really DUMB idea), I built and tested a stun gun
using two conductive streams of water. Due to breakup of the streams, the
best range I got was just over three feet - but I was able to light a neon
target reliably at that distance. The obvious problems with this approach
are that a raincoat completely defends against either conductive streams or
any 'UV' approach that does not incinerate its' target.
Chuck Kuecker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:23 MST