Re: Should we be developing nonlethal means ofself-defense?(wasre:violence)

From: Delvieron@aol.com
Date: Sat Oct 02 1999 - 23:01:03 MDT


In a message dated 10/2/1999 10:40:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Chuck Kuecker writes:

<<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.>>

     Thank you very much for your post, Chuck. Some hands on experience is
exactly what we need here in our theoretical musings<g>. Your comments are
the kinds of things I thought might be a problem with the wireless tasers
(though they were quite muddled in the back of my head and I didn't have
enough experience in this area to really be certain if there were anything to
them). I was worried that it would take a lot of energy to successfully fire
a taser without wires, and hadn't even considered the two pathway issue. And
of course the fact that it is easy to foil a taser with relatively common
clothes protection is a problem as well. Too bad that the UV laser would
require so much energy (thus increasing its destructive capability).

Glen Finney



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:23 MST