94 Ghz - Doppler Radar, Astronomy, and now, people screaming in agony!

[robinson]

The crowd is getting ugly. Soldiers roll up in a Hummer. Suddenly, the whole right half of your body is screaming in agony. You feel like you've been dipped in molten lava. You almost faint from shock and pain, but instead you stumble backwards -- and then start running. To your surprise, everyone else is running too. In a few seconds, the street is completely empty.

You've just been hit with a new nonlethal weapon that has been certified for use in Iraq -- even though critics argue there may be unforeseen effects.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72134-0.html?tw=rss.index

I'm pretty sure there will be unforeseen effects. And all this time I thought radar was only good for observing stuff. Seems turning it on a crowd of people is fun too.

While some might argue this is a social issue, the science of electromagnetic radiation is of more interest to me than what some really pissed off person thinks after they have been fried with a radar beam.

[Cello Man]

Yeah, I've been following this story with what can only be described as morbid fascination. Sure it'll break up a rioting crowd in a hurry, but it certainly won't help the USA's percieved "we love to torture our enemies" image. Whether that argument is true or not, this won't win us any friends.

[robinson]

That frequency is also used for concealed weapon detection, forward looking radar, downward looking satellites, and anti-tank weapons.

[CurtC]

I'm surprised they can generate enough power at 94 GHz to do this. I've done some work with measurements at these frequencies, and tens of microwatts is usually all we have.

Anyway, this sounds better than tear gas, rubber bullets, or firehoses.

[Pescado]

It seems so cool that we finally have a beam weapon. Maybe I am a callous a-hole, but I can't wait to see a video of this technology in use.

Set all radar to stun!

[kmortis]

I'm surprised they can generate enough power at 94 GHz to do this. I've done some work with measurements at these frequencies, and tens of microwatts is usually all we have.

Anyway, this sounds better than tear gas, rubber bullets, or firehoses.
I'm with you. As freq goes up, effective power goes down. Energy consumption goes up too.

They are correct tho, the skin effect keeps all the energy on the outside of the skin, so you'll endup with a NASTY sunburn, but no lasting damage. Of course, it'll be a sunburn all over the exposed area.


robinson,
It's GHz, not Ghz. That's Gigahertz, after Heinrich Hertz. Sorry, I have to see that everyday, and it bothers me.

[AgingYoung]

It would make a nice 'invisible' fence for some borders.

Gene

[Soapy Sam]

What effect does this have on the eyes?

[John Hewitt]

I'm surprised they can generate enough power at 94 GHz to do this. I've done some work with measurements at these frequencies, and tens of microwatts is usually all we have.

Anyway, this sounds better than tear gas, rubber bullets, or firehoses.

I seem to recall that many of the early workers on radar suffered from subsequent cataracts. (The lens of the eye is very sensitive to heating effects because it has no blood supply to provide cooling.) This seems quite a likely side effect with this weapon.

[Yllanes]

What effect does this have on the eyes?

The effect of this device is probably mainly heat. The frequency is 94 Ghz. Compare to the 400 000- 700 000 GHz of visible light. Energy is proportional to frequency, so this is certainly non ionising and so uncapable of causing, say, cancer.

[Dave1001]

EDIT. The vehicle pictured with this technology looks cool and futuristic -and scary.

[Rob Lister]

The wavelength is a tad over 3mm. Given sufficient power, it will heat the exposed exterior of skin surface fairly evenly and quickly. I wouldn't think that 'shock' would occur but 'discomfort' certainly would.

Cataracts? I'm no doctor but I can't see how.

I rather like it.

[Zep]

Does it cause...The Brown Note???

[casebro]

It seems so cool that we finally have a beam weapon. Maybe I am a callous a-hole, but I can't wait to see a video of this technology in use.

Set all radar to stun!

We DO have a beam weapon. Seems that if you first ionize the air with a lazer beam, you can send a plasma beam down the ionised air. Short range of a couple hundred feet, but we have them in Iraq for destroying IEDs. $2,000,000 per. bt some company in Arizona, as I recall.

[Dr. Imago]

What effect does this have on the eyes?

Eye damage is identified as the biggest concern, but the military claims this has been thoroughly studied. Lab testing found subjects reflexively blink or turn away within a quarter of a second of exposure, long before the sensitive cornea can be damaged. Tests on monkeys showed that corneal damage heals within 24 hours, the reports claim.

"A speculum was needed to hold the eyes open to produce this type of injury because even under anesthesia, the monkeys blinked, protecting the cornea," the report says.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72134-1.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1

-Dr. Imago

[BillC]

Some people's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keratoconus) corneas are more sensitive than others'. I find the concept a little worrying, and am yet to be convinced that it's as safe as is being claimed.

[Dark Jaguar]

Well it's infra, not ultra, so there's no risk of cancer, but at the same time a severe sunburn is... less than ideal. What of the old or enfeebled? For some people a severe sunburn may be too much stress on the body, whereas teargas would not. I'm not sure though. It's interesting and in the case of riots I am in favor of self defense and defense of others even if there is some pain involved (only enough to cease the threat of course). I'm just also wondering if this could blind or even kill people. What I'm not worried about though is cancer, so there's that going for it at least.

[blutoski]

CurtC: Love the avatar.

[clarsct]

Beats the hell out of firing into the crowd.

Sounds quite a bit safer than a firehose. Having been hit with a 1.5 in firehose at 200 psi, I have to tell you, it leaves bruises.

Someone will figure a way to nullify it. Wave interference, maybe.

[robinson]

One can hardly wait until this is used to torture people. (Oh yeah, like it won't ever happen). Its like something right out of Herbert's Dune series, in which pain was caused by nerve induction, leaving no physical signs.

"I was tortured! They used some kind of ray beam! My flesh felt like it was dipped in molten metal! The burning! The horror! The agony was beyond belief! "

"There are no sings of any torture. We conclude the subject is delusional."

Of course one might imagine I am speaking of the US using it to torture people. But no, I am thinking about our enemies, and what they are going to do to captured civilians and soldiers, after they either make or steal one of these devices. A major unexpected effect of using new technologies like this. Its all fine when WE use it on people, but does anyone really think our enemies are not going to make this stuff? And that they won't crank up the power enough to simply blind everyone right off the bat? Or fry you to a crisp?

Jeezus. Pandora's box once more.

[robinson]

You've just been hit with a new nonlethal weapon that has been certified for use in Iraq -- even though critics argue there may be unforeseen effects.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72134-0.html?tw=rss.index
I'm pretty sure there will be unforeseen effects.

Oh yeah...

[Scott Haley]

When they first decided what the phaser weapons would be like on Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry and his staff said that the lowest setting on a phaser would be "sting"--a painful but non-lethal setting. As far as I know, no one on any episode ever set phasers to "sting."

Maybe we've discovered the secret of the "agony booth" used in the evil "mirror" universe.

Live long and prosper.

--Scott

[DRBUZZ0]

The crowd is getting ugly. Soldiers roll up in a Hummer. Suddenly, the whole right half of your body is screaming in agony. You feel like you've been dipped in molten lava. You almost faint from shock and pain, but instead you stumble backwards -- and then start running. To your surprise, everyone else is running too. In a few seconds, the street is completely empty.


Um...that's interesting. The "whole right half of your body is screaming in agony"

so in other words...your left side is not screaming (not even the left side of your mouth). But the right side of your body....it's screaming bloody murder... even your arm is screaming on the top of it's....um....lung?

[Ducky]

They've been using radar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven) to torture chicken and other meats for years.

Well I have. Cause I can't cook, and my microwave is a disaster area for bad "cooking" ideas.

[robinson]

http://www.zyra.org.uk/microw2.htm

[Dark Jaguar]

Um...that's interesting. The "whole right half of your body is screaming in agony"

so in other words...your left side is not screaming (not even the left side of your mouth). But the right side of your body....it's screaming bloody murder... even your arm is screaming on the top of it's....um....lung?

Well how many of these things did you think there were using, and from what angles? I'm pretty sure only one side of a human body can be hit with this thing at a time, unless you either have two of these set up on either side or a wall that's a mirror to this wavelength behind the person.

[DRBUZZ0]

Well how many of these things did you think there were using, and from what angles? I'm pretty sure only one side of a human body can be hit with this thing at a time, unless you either have two of these set up on either side or a wall that's a mirror to this wavelength behind the person.

you miss the point. It's the word "screaming" which to me means vocalizing...Okay... I suppose it could also mean the sensation of pain. Still seems a bit off. "Screaming in agony" that's not something your arm usually does...

[robinson]

Or the writer could have screwed up.

[Crazycowbob]

This is an interesting concept, but I'm still for the sonic non-lethal weapons (can't link to any from the work computer here, but do a google search for "piezo" and "non-lethal weapons", you'll find some). Instead of firing off EM waves, they use a large bank of piezo transducers to create an inaudible, but high amplitude sound wave that really screws with the inner ear, causing disorientation, dizziness, all that jaz. :)

Beam weapons are cool and all, and most likely safe, but given other options, I'd rather not be shot with any more EM radiation than I have to on a day to day basis :D

[robinson]

I heard that. And all this time we have been told microwaves can't hurt you and stuff. Now the same frequency that is used for weather radar, turns out to hurt like hell.

[DRBUZZ0]

I heard that. And all this time we have been told microwaves can't hurt you and stuff. Now the same frequency that is used for weather radar, turns out to hurt like hell.


Yes that's true, and therefore I would suggest finding your local National Weather Service station, climbing up the tower and leaning against the raydome.

[Globert]

IIRC, Some audio is Ultra Low freq. like a horror movie soundtrack; rumbles the belly, makes one queasy.

One can use an industrial laser to cause blindness allready, it was even featured on CHiPs! (US TV circa the groovin 70's) :)

[robinson]

Yes that's true, and therefore I would suggest finding your local National Weather Service station, climbing up the tower and leaning against the raydome.

That makes you sound dumb.

[DRBUZZ0]

That makes you sound dumb.


Somebody has never heard of the inverse square law, eh?

[robinson]

Obviously you don't know how radar works. Or if I want to mirror your snide remarks, "Somebody never heard of a wave guide."


Hint: Radar doesn't obey the inverse square law.

Clue up dude.

[robinson]

Whoops! I meant to add a :wackylaugh: up there. You are sorta funny.



IIRC, Some audio is Ultra Low freq. like a horror movie soundtrack; rumbles the belly, makes one queasy.

One can use an industrial laser to cause blindness allready, it was even featured on CHiPs! (US TV circa the groovin 70's) :)

There was research done way back in the sixties on low frequency weapons. They work quite well, but nobody was ever able to shield the users from the effects, so they are not used. I think 7 Hz was the frequency that made people feel like they were going to die. A quick search shows this is not top secret information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weaponry

[DRBUZZ0]

Obviously you don't know how radar works. Or if I want to mirror your snide remarks, "Somebody never heard of a wave guide."


Hint: Radar doesn't obey the inverse square law.

Clue up dude.

Not true. The radar beam also reduces in intensity, no matter how narrow it is it would have to be perfectly narrow in order to have no dispersion. (A maser). These do exist, but not for dopier radar. Also consider that the radar is of a frequency which is reflected by dust and moisture in the atmosphere.

I can show you, if you like, my isotropic radiation meter. It reads about 0/mw/m^2 outdoors, unless I bring a cell phone or something near it. And I live only 15 miles from an airport with weather radar and 25 miles from NWS dopler

[robinson]

I know radar reduces, but not according to the inverse square law. I didn't say the energy level doesn't drop, I said Radar doesn't follow the inverse square law. Its true!

[robinson]

What range is your meter? I only got 100kHz to 3GHz. You can measure 94GHz? Way cool.

[ponderingturtle]

Well it's infra, not ultra, so there's no risk of cancer, but at the same time a severe sunburn is... less than ideal. What of the old or enfeebled? For some people a severe sunburn may be too much stress on the body, whereas teargas would not. I'm not sure though. It's interesting and in the case of riots I am in favor of self defense and defense of others even if there is some pain involved (only enough to cease the threat of course). I'm just also wondering if this could blind or even kill people. What I'm not worried about though is cancer, so there's that going for it at least.

I don't think it would be a sunburn as that is from the UV, it would be a low level thermal burn not a low level radiation burn.

[robinson]

Test have shown that blindness is not a problem, because the intense pain makes people shut their eyes right away, meaning that only their eyelids are burning. So the running screaming people are also running with their eyes closed.

Can't wait for the youtube video of this thing in action. The burning, the running, the screaming ... the crashing into stuff and falling down...

[Cuddles]

One can use an industrial laser to cause blindness allready, it was even featured on CHiPs! (US TV circa the groovin 70's) :)

Blindness? You can use an industrial laser to cut through sheets of steel, blindness really isn't tricky. Although blindness without actually vapourising the eyeballs might be a little tougher.

[robinson]

The sighting lasers on military guns are called eye poppers. They are not allowed to be used as weapons however.



























Yet.

[Hellbound]

Robinson:

Actually, the lasers on the hand-held weapons aren't really that dangerous. Now the laser sighting systems used on , for example, the M1A1...THAT will blind you at a rather impressive range.

[robinson]

What about a portable laser that outputs 316mW? That seems to be a Class III laser. Eye danger? Or just balloon poppin fun?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BnQkAfGWPE

[Hellbound]

Dunno, I can only speak form experience on the military lasers.

LEt me rephrase: it takes too long to do serious damage witht e targeting lasers designed for small arms. If you stared at it for a while, yeah. But most people will instinctively look away, and any damage (if any occurs) will be temporary and transient (I've been hit in the eye with them, as I'm sure many other military folks have).

The lasers on the M1 guns, though, are very high powered. They'll blind very quickly, and permanantly.

As to other hand-held laser beams, I can't speak to their safety or not.

[robinson]

I thought small arms were called rifles, and guns meant large weapons. Rifle sights wouldn't blind you, but a gun sight would. Is that correct?

[Hellbound]

I thought small arms were called rifles, and guns meant large weapons. Rifle sights wouldn't blind you, but a gun sight would. Is that correct?

Pistols are also called guns. Of course, that entire nomenclature os primarily movie related. In Basic training they make a big deal of correct naming (i.e., it's always "my rifle", never "my gun", always "pro mask" or "protective mask", never "gas mask", etc). But that doesn't really apply so much afterwards.

However, if you meant guns as large weapons, then I agree with you. I just wanted to clarify in case you meant small arms, and for our readers who might not know.

[robinson]

Did you watch the green laser videos? I found a report on pilot threat from them. Seems you can blind a pilot (temporary) on take off, from quite a ways away. How can they sell stuff like that to kids?

[ponderingturtle]

Did you watch the green laser videos? I found a report on pilot threat from them. Seems you can blind a pilot (temporary) on take off, from quite a ways away. How can they sell stuff like that to kids?

You realize you are useing two seperate definitions of blind in your arguements here? There is the way you can be blinded by shining a normal flashlight in your face at night, and the way you can be blinded by raming an icepick through both eyes. They are not at all the same.

[luchog]

Did you watch the green laser videos? I found a report on pilot threat from them. Seems you can blind a pilot (temporary) on take off, from quite a ways away. How can they sell stuff like that to kids?
"They" don't. That wasn't your typical green laser-pointer. The sales of Class IIIb lasers (anything over 5mW) are regulated, and cannot be sold to anyone under 18. Technically, they can't be sold to the general public, but only as "OEM" equipment for industrial/incorpration use.

[robinson]

Don't be stupid. It is obvious what I said. It would be dumb to think temporary blinding with a laser is the same thing as an ice pick in your eye.

[robinson]

http://www.raytheon.com/products/silent_guardian/

Raytheon reveals beam weapon range (250 yards), and announces it is ready for business, includes cool video with snappy music. (No footage of burning skin, running and screaming yet, but we can hope). Amazing technology, it can even read minds.

Silent Guardian produces precise effects at longer ranges than current less-than-lethal systems and provides real-time ability to establish intent and de-escalate aggression.

[Gbob]

I just love the phrase "less than lethal."

[c4ts]

Test have shown that blindness is not a problem, because the intense pain makes people shut their eyes right away, meaning that only their eyelids are burning. So the running screaming people are also running with their eyes closed.

Can't wait for the youtube video of this thing in action. The burning, the running, the screaming ... the crashing into stuff and falling down...

Can't wait to see some tasteless internet goon set it to the Benny Hill theme...

[robinson]

Oh, you mean, like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxJi-si5FRY

[baron]

Oh, you mean, like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxJi-si5FRY

That's the best thing I've seen in ages

[c4ts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=5QJO6zC3r5I

Even better.

[robinson]

No, no it was not. In fact, you killed the thread. Happy now? Huh? First it was Jesus, then this thread, (and probably set to snappy music too)

Well, I hope you are happy. Meanwhile, this remarkable weapon, which can read peoples minds, as well as cause them to run screaming and in pain, this wonderful energy weapon goes unnoticed, unappreciated by all.

I just hope you are happy. Thread killer.

[hoemaco]

Robinson, I'm not sure either how familiar you're with radars (including info from the cancer topic)...

The energy/unit area of the EM wave will be decreasing as of the inverse square of the distance from the transmitting antenna. For any and all applications. (Btw as far as i remember it's even true for masers and lasers, though they have a special beam called gauss beam, and keep very narrow beams, still a laser beam is kilometres wide when hits the moon).

Radar is just an ordinary antenna. Only that after we transmitted a pulse , we switch to reception and use the same (or another) antenna for receiving the reflected signal. (or simultaneously for cw radars). This doesn't make it different for laws of physics. What you are thinking about might be the fact that for detecting a target, the *returned* energy will be prop. to inverse 4th power of distance! (Because the wave goes 1/r^2 to target, gets scattered, thus treated as coming from a new source, and gets 1/r^2 on the way back, multiplying the two gives 1/r^4). It'll be 1/r^3 for surface mapping radars, which have unit area targets instead of point targets (SLAR,SAR). But the target still receives the 1/r^2 energy.

Btw I'm at the radar lab of my university (doing my phd). That of course doesn't mean everything I say is true, but at least I've learned some basic ideas about radars and also have the necessary books and a radar expert nearby; plus some basic practice.

I'd agree with others that I don't see a chance to cause cancer, it indeed doesn't go deep into your sking (cf afaik even microwaves in the oven go only a few cm, though i'll calc it when i'm awake).

I'm not sure about the eyes, though. We've always been told not to look into the open waveguides (which are of very low energy in comparison). I hope that it's true what the army says about blinking. I'd not like to be a test subject. (Though probably taking into account the crowd's distance and the small area of your eyes they might not get so hurt, but who knows... no peer review/repeated experiments by other labs here)

Btw I thought DRBUZZ0 was being ironic with asking to go up the radome.
Robinson, you must not know much about radars, if you didn't know previously that those waves can hurt. The guys at the meteorological station we've visited told us it wouldn't be wise to climb up near the antenna, though it's also not probable, being placed high enough. A friend working in airplane tech told me if you stand in front of the plane's radar (and turn it on for a short time), you can become sterile (ie kills spermiums) for a week or so. I'm not sure about that being true, but afaik it could happen. Though it'd take a crazy technician to try this, just a little bit longer and you're hurt for a lifetime maybe, and can apply for a Darwin award. (They also told me what they're doing after the treatment, you know, with the stewardesses, but that's not forum topic ;) )

I would prefer this treatment to the 'rubber bullets' and 'tear gas' and 'water cannons' the police use so often nowadays. I've luckily not suffered them, but seen folks in tv and spoke with some of them... the riots in hungary a year/half a year ago - the police fired grenades even at old ladies going home from the market, and hit people already on the ground with batons dozens of times. Lot of innocent (not rioting) people were hurt, with no chance of compensation (as police took off their id badges). A stray rubber bullet hitting your eyes (happened!) is I think worse than any hours of ninety GHz exposition. (It also shows it's not only our enemies in iraq etc we have to fear of using these weapons. I personally fear our own police much more. They're nearer to me.)

Also makes me remember what I learned about police shooting at kids protesting against vietnam... with real firearms...(substitute any more recent example from any country) so what's this buzz about nonlethal weapons?

I think that saying "it'll be used for torture, omg" is kind of hypocritical point of view. People in the middle ages have invented and used torture methods just the mentioning of which makes us feel bad. The videos on the net about iraqis and americans torturing each other means that it'd be a most foolish reason to ban this weapon because it'd used for torture. As long as your soldiers and your enemies can't be stopped from torturing each other, giving them one more way is a drop in the sea. (Makes me also think about the story of a child-toy water gun or similar that was recalled for being too strong, but all the kids go around with real weapons that are not banned...you can buy ammo in an american shopping mall and you want to ban a nonlethal weapon...nice).

Btw, I've once been to a military tech conference, and heard a lecture about non-lethal weapons. The lecturer started with "there is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon"...

[INRM]

You know, the idea of the Constitution allowing the right to peacefully assemble kind of pre-supposes the government will allow them to protest without immediately trying to disperse them.

I think peaceful protest as long as just is okay. Not every critic is a threat to national security

[hoemaco]

I'd agree with that. Though in theory that has nothing to do with the 'morality' of the new weapon. Govts already have tools at their disposal to disperse people. Though this'd be a better one, resulting in less casualties (which create bad image), which might make them a bit more inclined to use it...

It hasn't been that long ago that anti-war protesters were shot dead...and there's no conscription now, the atmosphere is almost as tense.
I read an interview with a man from the street in which he said 'those protesting kids deserved it'. And we're saying bad things about the governments.

[Hellbound]

You know, the idea of the Constitution allowing the right to peacefully assemble kind of pre-supposes the government will allow them to protest without immediately trying to disperse them.

I think peaceful protest as long as just is okay. Not every critic is a threat to national security

Peaceful protest is legal, and protesters are not immediately dispersed in the U.S.

However, things like blocking traffic, disrupting businesses, harassing bystanders, and otherwise infringing on the rights of those not protesting is against the law. And refusing to obey police orders when they then try to, for example, clear roadways is also not really covered by "peacfully assemble".

These types of weapons provide a method to clear these types of gatherings with a lower likelyhood or serious injury.

But I suppose we could just go back to using CS and rubber bullets. OR let protests grow uncontrollably and make no attempt to limit damages from protests that get out of hand. I'm not really understanding what you're saying here, unless you're just factually incorrect.

[Soapy Sam]

Will it make the earphones of Discmans explode?

Because that's what I'm looking for.

[hoemaco]

Will it make the earphones of Discmans explode?

Because that's what I'm looking for.

You mean that of those annoying bastards on the bus, listening to techno or whateveritscalled music, the bass of which can be heard for miles, when you'd rather sleep?

There's a better solution for that, though I've not yet dared to try it (I am very aggressive in mind, but not physically strong). It's called (quickly lookup dictionary..) pliers :)

Btw an earphone is so small that it'd act as a very bad antenna, requiring enormous energy to blow it up with emf. However, I've heard about plans of satellite jamming/overloading, since they have nice dishes. Though the Chinese used traditional missiles for the sure effect without investing to new research in emf :D

[hoemaco]

messed up the English grammar, as usual. I hate those things that have a plural name, like a pair of scissorts, glasses or pliers. You can't just say " it is", or can you?

[INRM]

http://www.raytheon.com/products/silent_guardian/

Raytheon reveals beam weapon range (250 yards), and announces it is ready for business, includes cool video with snappy music. (No footage of burning skin, running and screaming yet, but we can hope). Amazing technology, it can even read minds.

Are you serious? :P

[robinson]

Rarely. :D

But these guys, now THEY sound serious.
The Silent Guardian™ protection system is a revolutionary less-than-lethal directed energy application that employs millimeter wave technology to repel individuals or crowds without causing injury. The system provides a zone of protection that saves lives, protects assets and minimizes collateral damage. Silent Guardian produces precise effects at longer ranges than current less-than-lethal systems and provides real-time ability to establish intent and de-escalate aggression. Various commercial and military applications include law enforcement, checkpoint security, facility protection, force protection and peacekeeping missions. The system is available now and ready for action.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/silent_guardian/

[tracer]

I am reminded of the "Mirror, Mirror" episode of the original Star Trek TV series.

Mirror-universe Spock turns to the flunky who just screwed up and says, "Your agonizer, please."

[Hellbound]

Robinson:

Establish intent means something other than what you're reading it as, in security terms. A sign and a fence can establish intent, for example. IF you post "No Trespassing" signs and have a fence around your property, then anyone who enters your property can be said to have intended to trespass, thus establishing intent.

I'd suspect, when discussing less-than-lethal weapon systems, the idea is that if they keep coming after being warned, you hit them with the LTL weapon. If they still keep coming, you have established intent (in other words, they were more than adequately warned not to continue, so must be doing so intentionally).

That's a layman's explanation of it, anyway, in case you weren't aware.

[robinson]

Hand me my agonizer please.

[robinson]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20497575/?GT1=10252

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2918656#post2918656

[Safe-Keeper]

Science Illustrated ran an article on this and other non-lethal weapons years ago. One of the arguments against them was that they'd be 'easier' to use than things such as tear gas and ordinary weaponry, reducing the threshold for when you attack crowds. As a result, attacks on, say, demonstrations could become more frequent.

And, of course, 'the whole right half of your body is screaming in agony. You feel like you've been dipped in molten lava. You almost faint from shock and pain, but instead you stumble backwards' sounds far too painful to be legal. But then again, given the US's record for torture, I wouldn't be surprised to encounter one of these should I go on a 'demonstration turning ugly' in the US for some reason.

I just love the phrase "less than lethal."It has been suggested that it be renamed to 'less lethal', as many 'less than lethal' weapons certainly have the ability to kill.

[robinson]

I wonder if they would turn it off when people who had been trampled, seriously injured, laying on the ground, writhing in agony, I wonder if they would turn it off to keep from burning them alive?

Will it damage cell phone cameras? Because the first time they turn this weapon on, and blast a crowd of people with it, there might be some cool footage of people running and screaming, it burns, it burns...make it stop! Make it stop!!!











I really think they should rename it the agonizer.

[fuelair]

Peaceful protest is legal, and protesters are not immediately dispersed in the U.S.

However, things like blocking traffic, disrupting businesses, harassing bystanders, and otherwise infringing on the rights of those not protesting is against the law. And refusing to obey police orders when they then try to, for example, clear roadways is also not really covered by "peacfully assemble".

These types of weapons provide a method to clear these types of gatherings with a lower likelyhood or serious injury.

But I suppose we could just go back to using CS and rubber bullets. OR let protests grow uncontrollably and make no attempt to limit damages from protests that get out of hand. I'm not really understanding what you're saying here, unless you're just factually incorrect.I firmly agree with you on the legality of your "However". Amazingly on several other threads on the forum a number of posters have tried to argue that that is not or should not be against the law. (i.e. protesters should be able to do whatever/wherever within miniscule limits no matter how it infringes on real people doing real stuff)(and I would say this even for a crowd demanding Shrub's immediate impeachment, trial and lifetime prison sentence!!!).

[robinson]

Update on the newest Ray Gun, "Silent Gaurdian". I saw this demonstrated on TV last week.

"Where do I put my finger? There ... OK? Nothing's happening ... is it on?"

"Yes, it's on. Move your finger a bit closer."

"Er ... ow! OW!" Not good. I try again. "OWWW!" I pull my hand away sharpish. My finger is throbbing, but seems undamaged.

I was told people can take it for a second, maximum. No way, not for a wimp like me.

I try it again. It is a bit like touching a red-hot wire, but there is no heat, only the sensation of heat. There is no burn mark or blister.

Its makers claim this infernal machine is the modern face of warfare. It has a nice, friendly sounding name, Silent Guardian.

I am told not to call it a ray-gun, though that is precisely what it is (the term "pain gun" is maybe better, but I suppose they would like that even less).

And, to be fair, the machine is not designed to vaporise, shred, atomise, dismember or otherwise cause permanent harm.

Oww! Michael Hanlon tries the Raytheon ray-gun

But it is a horrible device nonetheless, and you are forced to wonder what the world has come to when human ingenuity is pressed into service to make a thing like this.

Silent Guardian is making waves in defence circles. Built by the U.S. firm Raytheon, it is part of its "Directed Energy Solutions" programme.

What it amounts to is a way of making people run away, very fast, without killing or even permanently harming them.

That is what the company says, anyway. The reality may turn out to be more horrific.

I tested a table-top demonstration model, but here's how it works in the field.

A square transmitter as big as a plasma TV screen is mounted on the back of a Jeep.

When turned on, it emits an invisible, focused beam of radiation - similar to the microwaves in a domestic cooker - that are tuned to a precise frequency to stimulate human nerve endings.

It can throw a wave of agony nearly half a mile.

Because the beam penetrates skin only to a depth of 1/64th of an inch, it cannot, says Raytheon, cause visible, permanent injury.

But anyone in the beam's path will feel, over their entire body, the agonising sensation I've just felt on my fingertip. The prospect doesn't bear thinking about....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=482560

[robinson]

"But it is a horrible device nonetheless, and you are forced to wonder what the world has come to when human ingenuity is pressed into service to make a thing like this."

Yes, yes one does. Especially when it is obvious it isn't going to be used for warfare, but control of unarmed citizens.

[Soapy Sam]

So how far does this form of radiation penetrate a shield made of perspex or aluminium?

The problem with non- lethal pain generating devices may be that someone will get annoyed enough to get up close behind some sort of shield, then take the damn thing away from you and just maybe shove it up your backside before switching it on.

Nice if it happened to the boys at Raytheon.

[kevsta]

i saw a clip of this being demonstrated on the UK news in January this year.

here's the wiki link for ADS, its been working for some time now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

[IllegalArgument]

"But it is a horrible device nonetheless, and you are forced to wonder what the world has come to when human ingenuity is pressed into service to make a thing like this."

Yes, yes one does. Especially when it is obvious it isn't going to be used for warfare, but control of unarmed citizens.

Yes, imagine if the Burmese government had one.

[sphenisc]

I have to say I find this device less horrible than ones designed to permanently damage or kill their targets.

What I do find horrible is my suspicion that the people its most likely to be sold to, are the people least likely to exercise restraint in using it.

[Taffer]

A friend working in airplane tech told me if you stand in front of the plane's radar (and turn it on for a short time), you can become sterile (ie kills spermiums) for a week or so. I'm not sure about that being true, but afaik it could happen. Though it'd take a crazy technician to try this, just a little bit longer and you're hurt for a lifetime maybe, and can apply for a Darwin award.

I've heard the same thing. In fact, I've heard of someone either loosing a hand, or being blinded (I forget which).

(They also told me what they're doing after the treatment, you know, with the stewardesses, but that's not forum topic ;) )


That'd be the pilots, not the engies. ;)

[robinson]

It isn't that hard to build a 94 Ghz radar. That is the frequency for collision avoidance radar, as well as doppler radar systems.

[Crazycowbob]

I think most people agree that it will probably be used more than it should, due to it's low risk and ease of use, and the effects certianly sound unpleasant. But if I'm protesting someplace, and some folks get roudy and start causing trouble, I'd much rather be the innocent bystander that got hit by this, than the innocent bystander choking on teargas, or, as has happened before, shot. But that's just my own self preservation speaking, can't speak for anyone else...

[DRBUZZ0]

I suppose you could make the same case for teargas or fire hoses or any crowed control like that. At least it's relatively safe.

My guess is that they'll be very careful who they use it on because it's new and as such they'll be videoing it and reporting on the "first use of the device" or "The new device successfully used to control crowed..."

But in a few years when the damn thing isn't experimental or media-worthy then the trigger-happiness comes in.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Pah! Get a largish sheet of cardboard (make your own decision on what "largish" is) and glue aluminum foil (shiny side out) to one side. When "attacked" point shiny side to relect the "rays" back at the sender. Much hilarity results.

[robinson]

A group would only need the front line to have overlapping shields, (just had image of "The 300"), making a line of protection.

But those non-violent resistors, you know, tree huggers and such, what a great pain compliance tool! Unless they dress in tin foil.

[robinson]

http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/145/the_ray_gun

Lots of videos of the "Ray Gun" in action, from a 60 minutes episode.

[BenBurch]

Note that the countermeasure of wearing "hardware cloth" (aka steel window screening) ought to work fairly well here...

[robinson]

I noticed he didn't try tin foil either.

[quarky]

sigh.

what was wrong with playing Barry Manilow really loud?

[BenBurch]

sigh.

what was wrong with playing Barry Manilow really loud?

Even REPUBLICANS agreed that was torture.

[INRM]

It just worries me that the government will use this technology on ALL protestors even ones that have a good point and aren't violent because it leaves no long lasting harm, and the pain is so extreme no human can tolerate it.

Sure it's only used by the military, but how long before law enforcement agencies start getting their hands on this?

INRM

[BenBurch]

It just worries me that the government will use this technology on ALL protestors even ones that have a good point and aren't violent because it leaves no long lasting harm, and the pain is so extreme no human can tolerate it.

Sure it's only used by the military, but how long before law enforcement agencies start getting their hands on this?

INRM

All it will take is one more bad protest in which the damned anarchists show up and try to cause, well, anarchy. (And we will ignore for a moment that those anarchists might not have been who/what they seem as has been alleged; I don't believe it, but it could happen.)

[robinson]

How long before a hand held unit? Forget the tazer, use the Ray Gun!











"Don't Ray Gun me Bro!"

[technoextreme]

Yeah, I've been following this story with what can only be described as morbid fascination. Sure it'll break up a rioting crowd in a hurry, but it certainly won't help the USA's percieved "we love to torture our enemies" image. Whether that argument is true or not, this won't win us any friends.

I'd take a microwave than a gun to the head anyday. Heck I'd prefered this to the tear gas.

[BenBurch]

I'd take a microwave than a gun to the head anyday. Heck I'd prefered this to the tear gas.

As an asthmatic, Tear Gas would be something like fatal...

[technoextreme]

As an asthmatic, Tear Gas would be something like fatal...
True but when I was thinking of being killed by tear gas I was thinking along the lines of the Boston Police Department.:) Though I wouldn't want to be wearing a pacemaker when I get hit by one of those things.