Set Free Your Inner Jedi (Or Pyro)

sirgoran writes "We've all thought about being the hero fighting off evil-doers and saving the day ever since we first saw Star Wars. The folks at Wicked Lasers have now brought that a little closer to reality with their latest release: a 1-Watt blue diode laser that can set skin and other things on fire. From an article at Daily Tech, where they talk about the dangers of such a powerful laser: 'And here's the best (or worst) part — it can set people (or things) on fire. Apparently the laser is so high-powered that shining it on fleshy parts will cause them to burst into flames. Of course it's equally capable of blinding people.' The thing that caught my eye was the price: $200. I wonder if they'll be able to meet the demand, since (if it works as advertised) this will be on every geek's Christmas list."

Comments

2nd Amendment

[dward90]

Does the right to bear arms cover arms which are for more awesome than ever conceived of by the writers of the constitution?

Re:2nd Amendment

[IndustrialComplex]

Does the right to bear arms cover arms which are for more awesome than ever conceived of by the writers of the constitution?

I'd suggest you not have bare arms if this thing can set flesh on fire.

Re:2nd Amendment

[spinkham]

There is a high power laser pointer ban, but the ban is on marketing terms only. Only class 3a or lower lasers (0-5mW) may be marketed as laser pointers. Class 3b and higher lasers (5-500mW) may be sold in a hand-held form, but not marketed as pointers or amusement devices.

More to the point, there are regulatory requirements for features in high power laser devices that are often ignored.
All types of laser devices of any power must be registered with the FDA prior to sale in the US. Note this is registration per product type, not per sale. Class 3b and higher lasers must have a key based lockout, a remote interlock connector, and a warning label affixed to the product. Most importers of cheap chinese lasers of class 3b (>5mW) fall afoul of all of these requirements, and they are often confiscated in shipping with no recourse for the buyer.

http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/LaserProductsandInstruments/ucm116373.htm
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?FR=1040.10

The only class 3b hand-held lasers I've seen recently which meet all the requirements above are sold by wickedlasers.com. In the past year they have added a safety "key" and interlock connector to their class 3b laser products, and they now meet all the legal requirements. Other vendors might also meet the legal requirements, but I have not personally seen any.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Yvan256]

The real question is, does the FDA regulates the sales of freakin' sharks?

Re:2nd Amendment

[cayenne8]

I'm guessing this blue laser would be quite effective at 'disabling' those pesky stop light/speeding cameras the city has recently been trying to set up, eh?

BWHAAHAHAHAHAHAHahaa....

Re:2nd Amendment

[fyngyrz]

Does the right to bear arms cover arms which are for more awesome than ever conceived of by the writers of the constitution?

The 2nd amendment covers arms. If you use, or intend to use, this as a weapon, it's arms. So yes, it's covered.

At the time, "arms" consisted of the following (and more, and were being developed into new forms every day): All manner of pistols, rifles, muskets, cannons, explosive and solid cannonballs, cannonballs filled with shards, frigates with multiple decks of cannon, wagons with explosives and multiple guns rigged to fire in unison, chain shot, flaming missiles soaked with pitch and other inflammable, easily spread and extremely hard to extinguish compounds, swords, knives, bayonets, fighting canes, brass knuckles, battering rams, catapults, siege towers, caltrops, mines, pits, biologically contaminated materials, glass bottles, garrotes, whips, chains, both fused and mechanically triggered explosives, striking weapons like sticks and poles and pikes and quarterstaffs and maces and war-hammers, spears, bows, axes, arrows and crossbows... I could go on for pages.

Knowing this, and knowing that arms development and refinement went on all the time, what did they put in the constitution? They put "arms." No more, no less. So it's pretty darned clear they meant: "Tools you use to project violence."

Not that the USG pays much attention to the actual meaning and intent of the constitution.

As for "awesome", I don't think this is any more "awesome" than having a flaming arrow fired from a ballista 500 yards (or more) away arrive in your eye socket or your forearm. And that's been an available weapons technology for over 2,000 years.

Firestorms have always wreaked huge havoc; bio-weapons have been known, and used, for centuries; incoming chain shot, pitch, and barbed weapons, and worse were the rule of the day, and death and maiming has always been death and maiming. Though we do have better medical technology now, so that at least alleviates the previous almost-guarantee of death by peritonitis, gangrene, and similar. Presuming you survive the injury at all.

Weapons aren't nice. The sudden realization of the panic-stricken that they might be hurt by deployment of a weapon doesn't really change anything except one's state of mind. Before lasers, we could still burn your eyes out from a distance. Before nukes, we could still burn you (and tens of square miles around you) out at thousands of degrees, leaving all manner of chemical poisons lying around in the aftermath, and leaving people on the periphery with all manner of creative types of injuries. Google the Berlin and Tokyo firestorms for examples. Before anthrax, we could still infect you and yours with all kinds of things; see General Jeffery Amherst's letters ca. ~1763 for some bio-weapons history. Before airplanes, we could still deliver explosives and fire by air. And in the end, if your legs terminate at the mid-femur, the question of how it happened - sword, grenade, flying masonary, 50 cal. bullet, infection, weapons shrapnel, mine... that's kind of beside the point. It all sucks about the same.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine it can also set clothes on fire, which begs the question:

No, it does not. See petitio principii.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Surt]

Only if sold as a medical device. For example, if you sold a shark as a contraceptive:

New Sexy(TM) Shark brand contraceptives uses the power of a real shark to prevent pregnancy.*

* Use of shark for contraceptive purposes may result in successful contraception by your parents.

Then the FDA will regulate your shark sales.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Mister Whirly]

"More recently, "to beg the question" has been used as a synonym for "to raise the question": for example, "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question, How are we ever going to balance the budget?"

Using the term in this way, although common, is considered incorrect by some usage commentators. Arguments over whether this newer usage should be considered correct or incorrect are an example of debate over linguistic description and prescription of a living language."

So I guess it really boils down to - are you an absolute stickler for old grammatical rules, or is language constantly evolving to the point where old expressions can take on new meanings?


Irregardless of your beliefs, the phrase was used in a perfectly crommulent way.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Cro Magnon]

Of course. All real Jedi build their own lightsabers.

Re:2nd Amendment

[AhabTheArab]

So.. what happened? Does your sig offer insight into that?

Re:2nd Amendment

[Hatta]

The grandparent's assertion requires the acceptance of the definition of "begging" as dodging or avoiding rather than the current universally accepted dictionary definition.

"begging" in this context does not mean "dodging". "begging the question" means that you are being asked to accept a postulate for the sake of argument, and that postulate is equivalent to the question being debated. You are metaphorically being asked for something, which is the dictionary definition of begging.

Anyone who says "eh, language evolves" when "begs the question" is misused should consider how they'd react when someone points to their monitor and says "computer" or points to their tower and says "CPU". If enough people use "computer" to mean "monitor", then that's what it really means right?

Re:2nd Amendment

[Hatta]

9 times out of 10 when the public uses the word "theory" they really mean "hypothesis". Should that stop scientists from using the word "theory" correctly? Should that stop us from educating people about the real definition of the word "theory"? Should scientists have to change their language every time the public warps it beyond recognition?

Look at the damage the misunderstanding of the word "theory" has done in the context of the "theory of evolution". It's just a theory, right?

Words mean whatever it's more useful for them to mean. "begs the question" is much more useful as a type of fallacy than as a synonym for "raises the question".

Re:2nd Amendment

[Hatta]

First your argument doesn't actually counter the actual substance of mine: That it's a fallacy to insist that a non-standard definition of a word can be used to claim that using that word in a sentence by it's standard definition is incorrect.

I don't dispute your argument, it's irrelevant. When we use "begging the question" we mean begging in the actual standard dictionary definition sense.

Second you have effectively just "begged the question" yourself by automatically assuming that your position is correct by the bare assertion that it is correct.

I have etymology on my side.

Third you've ignored my supporting point that it is just as much a fallacy to try and insist that anyone using the word "let" to mean permitting or allowing is incorrect as it is to insist that anyone using the word beg to mean... begging... in terms of desperately raising a question is similarly incorrect.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are arguing here. I suspect it's related to the above irrelevant point.

Re:2nd Amendment

[achbed]

Ah Slashdot. Where a discussion of a portable laser being used as a weapon can devolve into a grammar and logical fallacy flamewar in 4 posts or less.

Set up instructions

[halcyon1234]

The thing that caught my eye was

The label that read "do not look at laser with remaining eye"?

Re:Set up instructions

[harrkev]

I absolutely do NOT want one of those things. Call me old-fashioned, but I like stereoscopic vision. I would really rather have both of my eyes working just fine, thank you.

The good thing about guns is that they do not constantly spew out a continuous stream of dangerous projectiles for minutes at a time. Even a full-auto machine gun will run out of bullets after a dozen seconds or so. A laser can emit dangerous projectiles for minutes as a time, and the projectiles can bounce off any reflective surface. This thing is very likely to blind somebody unless rigorous safety procedures are used.

Anybody who buys one of these without the appropriate safety glasses is a complete idiot and deserves what they get. I just hope they do not blind anybody else in the process.

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Local pet stores sell sharks in record numbers.

1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire

[smellsofbikes]

Unless you hold it there for a *long* time. I've been hit by a 40 watt (CO2) laser and it left me with a burn that was like a bad sunburn. I have a 400mW (red) laser that I've been using to shoot down wasps in my workshop (it's a tall building and I can't get anything up to where they want to build a nest -- but let me warn you that a flaming wasp is a fire hazard) and it takes several seconds of exposure before the wasp dies.

With that said, I might be trying to get one of these because you can do some pretty cool stuff if you mount a laser this powerful in a plotter. It gets even better if you gut the plotter and add a Z axis so you can melt the top layer of material selectively, then lower the z stage, add a bit more material, and again melt it selectively: a relatively inexpensive, relatively high-precision 3d printer.

Instant Blindness

[VidEdit]

I'm not sure if people get how crazy dangerous even a low end class 4 laser is to people's eyesight. Even diffuse reflections can cause blindness. And blindness from a direct beam or specular reflection is virtually instant, literally before you can blink. This laser is not a toy. Not something you can casually show off safely to your friends. You can blind people, forever, accidentally, in an instant. Just keep it in mind.

How can this be a general consumer product?

[LordZardoz]

Even the most ardent advocates of gun ownership being available to any and everyone will probably agree that selling a gun to someone who has no idea how to use and store it safely is a bad idea.

So other then what I imagine to be the joy of setting things on fire with a laser, what purpose can this thing serve? This kind of product should be sold with the same level of precaution as explosives and firearms.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:How can this be a general consumer product?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between stuff that can be dangerous if you very carefully try to make it dangerous and stuff that is dangerous unless you very carefully try to make it safe.

Re:powerful laser

[Zediker]

what kind of laser would I need to deal with this?

You would need the Remington 870 Pump-Action

SharkTech.

[fahrbot-bot]

From TFA:

The retailer warns: "Customers will be required to completely read and agree to our Class IV Laser Hazard Acknowledgment Form."

Dorsal or tail fin prints are acceptable.

Part sourcing

[Animats]

Source the parts better. It sounds like they have pulled this diode from a display projector,

Yes, they admit they did that. So they just have a prototype.

There's no big secret about the laser diode. It's a Nichia NDB7352. Any legit company can order those things in bulk from Nichia in Tokyo. No US distributor, including Nichia America, stocks them. WickedLasers probably doesn't buy enough of them to place an order with Nichia.

Great!

[Wireless Joe]

I'm looking forward to setting the disco ball hanging in the middle of my living room on fire in front of 20-50 of my friends. What could go wrong?

Fully Automatic Weapon

[TheLink]

Yes, sell and regulate it as a fully automatic weapon.

Don't they ban fully automatic rifles for civilian use in the USA?

This laser product is fully automatic weapon in the sense that:
1) It can continuously cause permanent blindness to people
2) It can do it at a 200 metre effective range
3) It does not need a reload after 9 or even 30 shots.

If you empty a handgun wildly into a crowd, you'd probably hit less than 20 people (and current medical tech might restore a significant number of them near completely). In contrast this laser when used on a crowd can permanently blind far more than 20 people. There are many places where you can find a crowd of hundreds looking at one spot.

The product in its current form does not appear to have a good utility to danger ratio.

Yes the laser itself has use in projectors and other stuff, but what good purpose does this product in this form have?

It's not very good as a defensive weapon: it doesn't really have very good stopping power - even if blinded, a gunman could still kill you (and he might have even higher motivation to do so). It has a very high chance of collateral damage.

To me if you can justify the banning of fully automatic assault rifles for general civilian use, you should also ban this weapon.

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[mweather]

Don't they ban fully automatic rifles for civilian use in the USA?

Nope. You just need to go through a few more checks than when you're buying a semi-automatic or single shot weapon, and pay a $200 transfer fee. The real barrier to buying a machine gun is the price, which isn't a barrier at all in the case of this pointer. Besides which, this wouldn't qualify as a machine gun as it's not a firearm. Even if it were classified as a firearm, it would be semi-automatic as it only fires once when you press the button. It's more akin to a flame thrower than a machine gun, and flame throwers are not federally regulated.

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[Kral_Blbec]

FTA

Designed and built for use with machine guns mounted on vehicles, aircraft, or waterborne platforms, the Spyder III is Wicked Laser's most powerful laser. Smaller than the size of a MagLite it generates a focused 500mW beam capable of illuminating a targets several miles away. The Spyder III is also ideal for patrol and checkpoint operations. A tactical ambidextrous constant on/off switch and removable safety key located on the tailcap provides convenient, fail safe operation. The world's only visible Class IV laser designed for tactical operations.

Its a targeting laser, not a weapon in and of itself.

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[SvnLyrBrto]

> It's not very good as a defensive weapon: it doesn't really have very good
> stopping power - even if blinded, a gunman could still kill you (and he
> might have even higher motivation to do so). It has a very high chance
> of collateral damage.

You know... I've personally never mugged anyone, nor been shot with a gun that has "stopping power". So I can't really say 100% for sure. But I would imagine that if I were blind and on fire, I wouldn't be able to continue mugging my would-be victim.

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[Martin Blank]

What you call brush control devices use jets of propane or similar gases. Flamethrowers in the military sense (which are now extremely rare in the US, even in the military) use a gel or liquid fuel that is usually not completely burned by the time it reaches the target, thereby leaving a flaming substance that allows an easier transfer of the heat to the target. Those that use propane stop delivering heat once the flame jet is removed.