From: Chuck Kuecker (ckuecker@mcs.net)
Date: Sun Oct 03 1999 - 08:32:20 MDT
The patent claims are quite interesting. Thanks for the reference
At 02:33 AM 10/3/1999 EDT, Delvieron@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>And here's the summary from the patent for his UV laser taser:
>
><<SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
>
>The principal object of the instant invention is to provide a non-lethal
>immobilizing weapon for use by military or law enforcement personnel.
>
>A second object of this invention is to provide a non-lethal, immobilizing
>weapon which is inherently safe in its operation.
>
So far, so good...
>A third object of this invention is to provide a non-lethal weapon which is
>capable of temporarily immobilizing a target subject without causing pain,
>shock, disorientation, or loss of consciousness.
>
This one seems an impossibility. I have never encountered any electrical
stimulation of the human body that did not entail at least one of these
effects. The whole idea of a stunner is to STUN...or cause loss of
orientation and control.
>A fourth object of this invention is to provide a non-lethal weapon which is
>capable of temporarily immobilizing a target subject without his being aware
>of the cause.
>
Stealthy stun? Why would this be a good thing? Once a person is stunned,
who cares if they know what hit them? They are out of the fight.
Unless, there are darker motivations than stopping a suspect - something
like knocking someone out and then subjecting them to procedures they would
later have no memory of?
Maybe this is how the saucer people are getting their victims :)
>A fifth object is to provide a non-lethal, immobilizing weapon whose range
is
>substantially greater than prior related weapons that use wires or
conductive
>liquid streams.
This is the big problem, as I pointed out in my earlier post. Any stun
technology that cannot work over more than a few meters is going to be of
very limited use.
>
>A sixth object is to provide a non-lethal, immobilizing weapon which can be
>fired from a remote location without requiring the physical impact of solid
>or liquid matter upon the target.
No projectiles - no reloading, no mess to clean up. Good goal.
>
>A seventh object is to provide a non-lethal, immobilizing weapon which can
be
>directed continuously and swept across an indefinitely large number of
target
>subjects.
>
I have doubts about how much dwell time is needed to successfully put
someone out of commission. A slight shock might take the fight out of
rioters, however - but it might also just make them angrier..
>An eighth object is to provide a non-lethal, immobilizing weapon which can
>rapidly be fired toward a specific location on a single target subject, or
to
>a specific target subject among many because of the highly directional
nature
>of its current-conducting means.
>
I still have doubts about how much voltage would be required. Even in low
pressure gases, it takes kilovolts to light (glow discharge) a tube a meter
or two long. 100 meters in air at STP still needs megavolts, not the 600
volts mentioned later in the patent.
>A ninth object is to provide a non-lethal, immobilizing weapon which has a
>significantly longer service life than prior related weapons.
>
I was not aware that the Taser has a limited life. UV lasers can be
expected to cost much more and require periodic replacement, although in
this kind of service they might last the lifetime of the stunner.
The citations about ionization and electron density may be true, but do not
really give a good feel for how much electrical power would be needed to
strike the arc and maintain it.
A glow discharge in air at STP requires an enormous electric field, on the
order of megavolts per meter. The laser provides the initial ionization,
but unless it is a CW laser, the conducted charge must maintain the path.
Hence my earlier comments about lightning.
An aside: Directed lightning strikes have been produced using lasers to
create an ionized channel. Experiments in Japan have shown that lightning
can be drawn to a selected collection point, thereby protecting antenna
towers and electrical distribution equipment nearby. So the idea of a
UV-produced conduction channel is workable.
I have a feeling that this is one of those 'ivory tower' ideas that are
proposed, get a lot of press, and then fade away without producing a
workable device.
Chuck Kuecker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:23 MST