Slashdot Mirror


DIY Laser Pistol Shoot 1MW Blasts

An anonymous reader writes "It doesn't get cooler than this — a German hacker put together a 1MW laser pistol capable of shooting straight through a razor blade with a single pulse. Quoting: 'Fitted with a Q-switched Nd:YAG laser, it fires off a 1 MW blast of infrared light once the capacitors have fully charged. The duration of the laser pulse is somewhere near 100ns, so he was unable to catch it on camera, but its effects are easily visible in whatever medium he has fired upon.'" Update: 03/17 18:22 GMT by T : Too bad; turns out it's "only" 1KW, rather than 1MW. I still want one.

53 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sweet. How long does it take to charge? IMMA FIRING MY LAZORS PEW PEW PEW

    1. Re:Sweet by halfEvilTech · · Score: 5, Funny

      now the bigger question...

      Did he add a sound modulator that makes the PEW sound every time he squeezes the trigger?

    2. Re:Sweet by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did he add a sound modulator that makes the PEW sound every time he squeezes the trigger?

      He likely didn't need to ... I suspect the squeals of glee followed by maniacal laughter suffice for the time being.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Sweet by ultranova · · Score: 2

      Did he add a sound modulator that makes the PEW sound every time he squeezes the trigger?

      If it vaporizes enough iron to cut through a razor blade in 100ns, the expanding cloud of gas from the target should provide more than adequate sound effects.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  2. Wrong power by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

    1kW, not 1MW.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1. Re:Wrong power by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 2

      The correction is in the comments, the original website states 1kW.

      Also, common sense might help... 1MW wouldn't should through just the razor...

    2. Re:Wrong power by conspirator57 · · Score: 4, Funny

      panda eats, shoulds, and leaves?

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    3. Re:Wrong power by PIBM · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google is your friend:
      100ns * 1MW

      (100 nanosecondes) * 1 mégawatt = 0,1 joules

      So, 1kW is barely 0.0001 joules..

    4. Re:Wrong power by delt0r · · Score: 2

      1MW for 100ns is just 0.1J. A teaspoon of gasoline has more than 100kJ of energy. I don't expect a laser pulse that feeble to do much no matter how you slice it. Note that at my old work we had a 1TW laser. Pulse power wasn't much higher than this one. Its not clear to me that this would do anything more than mark a razor blade.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    5. Re:Wrong power by Zcar · · Score: 2

      And, to be in the same neighborhood as a conventional pistol (at least in terms of energy delivered) with a 100 ns pulse you'd need around a 40-50 TW laser.

      Take 9mm Parabellum. 115 grains at about 1100 ft/s is around 420 J. Delivering that over 100 ns gives about 42 TW so this "pistol" is out by 10 orders of magnitude.

    6. Re:Wrong power by Leekle2ManE · · Score: 5, Funny

      What he's saying is that at 1MW, it wouldn't shoot through just a razor, but probably through the wood behind the razor. And the bricks behind the wood. And the cinderblock wall behind the bricks. And the lead statue across the quad and the sign over the diner across the campus. Where he would stop for a burger.

    7. Re:Wrong power by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      A tenth of a watt-second is not exactly Hiroshima. It is if you're in a colony of bacteria living quietly on a certain razor blade.

      Somewhere a giant alien is holding a hand held laser near our galaxy saying "its only 100 mega kawabs, but it should punch a hole through this disk...."

    8. Re:Wrong power by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      no, merely giving power output is completely meaningless for a pulsed laser. There might be enough energy to pierce a M1 Abrams tank, or to merely hit a speck on a razor at 1 MW. What is important is energy output, and without knowing the time for which 1 MW of power is output there is no way to know. Now a continuous beam laser of a megawatt, that would be a true weapon of war that could level buildings or turn tanks into slag, given enough minutes of application

    9. Re:Wrong power by locofungus · · Score: 2

      The power is pretty meaningless provided the pulse is short enough, it's the energy delivered that matters.

      You can get a low end estimate for the energy delivered by knowing the diameter and thickness of the hole.

      From that you can work out the mass of steel that is vapourized.

      The longer the pulse is the more time the heat has to dissipate until, eventually, the heat is conducted away so fast that you can't actually mark the steel at all.

      I can't be bothered to look up the numbers but lets assume 400J/kgK SHC (about 1/10 that of water), boiling point deltaT approx 3000K

      So we get approx 1.2MJ/Kg

      Density of about 10.

      0.1 mm cube of steel vapourized would then be about 0.1J

      If the pulse is 100ns then that would correspond to a power of about 1MW.

      Shortening the pulse to 1ns would up the power to 100MW but wouldn't make a significantly bigger hole because there isn't enough energy present. (I'm guessing that 100ns is already short enough that losing heat through conduction isn't a significant issue)

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    10. Re:Wrong power by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Er, normally the power output is given as the power of the laser pulse, is it not? Rather than normalized to an equivalent laser that is on continuously. A 1 MW laser that is pulsed at 10 Hz with a 50% duty cycle would be outputting 1 MW during the pulses,and 0 otherwise, for a total of half the energy of a 1 MW continuous laser.

      For example the laser in TFA, which is actually only 1 kW, pulses only once for 100ns. The actual power output of the pulse is 1 kW; it is not a 10 MW pulse that they average out over a second.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:Wrong power by burisch_research · · Score: 2

      Yes it does. Lasers are subject to the inverse square law just like all other light.

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    12. Re:Wrong power by kmike · · Score: 2

      So the article says 1MW, the author's video shows 1MW, and the youtube page says "it fires an intense 1 MW blast of invisible infrared 1064nm light". And yet a single anonymous comment saying 1kW is more trustworthy.

    13. Re:Wrong power by _0xd0ad · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

      The inverse-square law generally applies when some force, energy, or other conserved quantity is radiated outward radially from a point source.

      A laser does not act like a point source... or it does, but it acts like a point source which is very, very far away.

    14. Re:Wrong power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What the fuck is the matter with you guys??? He's got a cool, hand-held -laser gun- that shoots holes in stuff. Who gives a damn about "log10(4200), blah, blah, blah"

      It's like a friend's just got laid by a Victoria's Secret model (this is for argument's sake, so shut up) and the discussion devolves into an argument about the velocity of the ejaculate.

    15. Re:Wrong power by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      Yes, it does apply. Laser light is subject to the inverse square law like any other light.

      Not according to posts (below), summarizing:

      The inverse square law applies to light radiated in all directions. The reduction in intensity is because the same amount of light is covering an ever expanding area. With a laser, you're sending the light in a straight line (theoretically, at least). The light beam covers the same amount of area 10 miles from its source as it did when it first left the laser.

      The inverse square law applies only to isotropic light sources. A laser is highly directional and thus does not obey the inverse square law.

      http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=37462
      http://www.diyphotography.net/the-inverse-square-law-cheat-sheet-myth-basted
      http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/ket08.sci.phys.mfw.ketinverse/
      http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/9586-laser-and-inverse-square-law/

      Basically Google "+laser" +"inverse square"...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    16. Re:Wrong power by _0xd0ad · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. Re-focusing light creates a virtual image. Remember that from optics? It is the distance to that which the inverse square law follows, and that virtual image (in the case of a laser) is very, very far away. In a perfect laser, the distance to the virtual image would be infinite.

      The inverse square law requires a point source. Suppose your laser has an aperture which is 1 mm in diameter. At 1000 m, the beam has expanded to a 2 mm diameter. By simple geometry you can infer that if a point-source of the light exists, it actually appears to be 1000 m behind the laser itself. Doubling the distance from the laser's aperture would only increase the distance from the virtual point-source by a factor of 1.5, not 2.

    17. Re:Wrong power by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      No, on the YouTube page the creator admits that it is probably between 10 and 100kW. He claims that he "could" make it 1MW, but that "no one cares":

      Lets say 10kW to 100kW....noone cares btw ;-)

        I could make it 1MW.

      We care, though, because while the cool part of this project is the package in the author's eyes, an awful lot of geeks' ears perk up when they hear "megawatt laser". The project is very cool, but not a breakthrough.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    18. Re:Wrong power by Dahan · · Score: 2

      1kW isn't within the 10-100kW range. Where did the 1kW number come from, and why should we believe it over the builder's estimate?

    19. Re:Wrong power by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2

      A Slashdotter getting laid by a Victoria's Secret model is just crazy talk.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    20. Re:Wrong power by Salus+Victus · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem here is that people aren't trained in physics. Watts are a measure of power, not energy. If you multiply the Power x the amount of Time, the result is the amount of Energy.

      Think of it like a firehose vs. garden hose: the firehose pumps gallons of water per minute, but the garden hose takes a lot longer to pump the same amount of water. The "power" is like the size of the hose: how much energy does it pump in one second? That's like Watts. How much water ended up in the bucket? That depends on both Power and Time; you can fill the bucket faster with a firehose, but if you turn the firehose on and back off right away, then it's easy to get more water out of the garden hose by leaving it on longer. How much water ends up in the bucket is like how much Energy you used. 1 Joule is the amount of energy you get when you push 1 Watt for 1 Second. (1 Kilowatt-hour is the amount you get when you push 1,000 Watts for 1 Hour. If you're following the math, that means 1 KWH = 3,600,000 Joules.)

      In a pulsed laser, each burst has a duration, and the most useful information is how much Energy is released per pulse (Joules). That's why they're measured by Energy (Joules or milliJoules). For a continuous laser, there is no "time" element, so the output is measured in Power (Watts).

      So ... a 1 MW laser (Power) firing a pulse of 100ns (100 x 1/1,000,000,000th of a second), would give 1,000,000 Watts x 100 ns x 1 ns / 1,000,000,000 ns/sec = 100,000,000 / 1,000,000,000 = 100 / 1000 = 1/10th of 1 Joule each time it fires. A 60 Watt bulb uses 60 Watts per second ... 600 times as much Energy in 1 second as a 1MW laser delivers in 100ns. It's the incredibly small amount of time the pulse is firing (less than 1 millionth of a second) that results in so little energy being delivered to the target. It's the incredibly small area (focusing via the lens) that causes so little energy to do so much damage.

      A 1 KJ (Kilojoule) laser would be delivering as much Energy in a single pulse (remember: if we're measuring the laser in Joules, we're giving the value per pulse) as a 1,000 Watt spotlight would use (mostly becoming heat) in 1 second.

      I'm not saying this was made using a MW laser. I'm just explaining why a 1MW laser firing a millionth-of-a-second pulse isn't going to burn through anyone's bathroom wall. (And I'm not replying directly to Chris; I just wasn't sure where to drop this water-hose explanation into the conversation.)

      --
      In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there's a big difference.
  3. infrared? bogus. by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 2

    How will I know how close the stormtrooper is to hitting me?

    1. Re:infrared? bogus. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a stormtrooper: you don't need to see the shots to know that the answer is "close enough to add drama; never close enough to kill an important character, despite these guys being the Empire's crack infantry forces..." In a universe ruled by narrative causality, ontology is an excellent substitute for empiricism...

    2. Re:infrared? bogus. by stacybro · · Score: 2

      What if I am just a clone? I guess the only thing worse would be a clone with a red uniform.

    3. Re:infrared? bogus. by sdh · · Score: 2

      Manufacturers will be forced to add an additional slow visible pulse and an audible pew sound. Just like they have to add some engine noise because the Prius is too quiet.

    4. Re:infrared? bogus. by stjobe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Stormtroopers are excellent marksmen - what you see depicted in those Rebel propaganda videos is a tactic called "herding". Funnily enough the makers of the propaganda videos never show what happens after the stormtroopers have herded the scruffy nerf-herder rebels into their trap...

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    5. Re:infrared? bogus. by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      They then abandon the death star, and blow it up with the rebels inside? Seems a bit of an expensive way of dealing with the problem.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:infrared? bogus. by Lost+Race · · Score: 3, Funny

      In a universe ruled by narrative causality, ontology is an excellent substitute for empiricism...

      That's exactly what I always say!

      In a universe ... ruled by narrative causality ... one man ...

  4. Is it waterproof? by h.ross.perot · · Score: 2

    ..SHARKS! with freeking laser beams....

    --
    ... I'll have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster with a side of Plutonium Nyborg ...
  5. Awesome! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    As all right thinking people do, I have to love dangerous toys. The build quality and aesthetics are pretty sweet as well.

    Unfortunately, as is so often the case with exotic energy weapons, I just can't shake the nagging feeling that .22s or even compressed gas propelled sub-.22 rounds almost certainly pack more punch...

    1. Re:Awesome! by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2

      It might side-step local gun laws. Aren't lasers almost completely unregulated? If this was mass produced it could replace mace. I'd be a little concerned about blinding people. I'm not sure if IR blindness does anything to humans though.

      Shame he didn't get a pork shank to show us the effect it would have on flesh.

    2. Re:Awesome! by Card · · Score: 5, Informative
      From Wikipedia:

      Infrared lasers are particularly hazardous, since the body's protective "blink reflex" response is triggered only by visible light. For example, some people exposed to high power Nd:YAG laser emitting invisible 1064 nm radiation, may not feel pain or notice immediate damage to their eyesight. A pop or click noise emanating from the eyeball may be the only indication that retinal damage has occurred i.e. the retina was heated to over 100 C resulting in localized explosive boiling accompanied by the immediate creation of a permanent blind spot.

    3. Re:Awesome! by Danh · · Score: 2

      Visible light would not be safer here, since the pulse is just 100 ns long and thus much faster than any reflex of the eye.

  6. He even managed to make it look cool by vawwyakr · · Score: 2

    I'd buy one....not sure what the hell I'd do with it but I'd buy it. Now if it was ACTUALLY a 1MW laser...I'd buy two.

  7. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's Greedo no Guido - he's Rodian not Italian.

  8. Thievery by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A couple months ago I came a across a "game" at the mall, and I immediately thought "A person with a portable high powered laser could steal every bit of stuff out of this". Anyway the game is similar to those claw games, where you move the claw with a joystick to pick up an item. This game differs in that expensive items like DSi, PSP, iPod, are dangling from strings. The player moves an arm with an (obviously inept) pair of scissors on it, which tries to cut through the string to drop the item. It must take many cuts to gradually cut through the string, because I could see where strings had been slightly damaged by the cutters, but still needed a lot more to cut all the way through.

    Anyway, a person with one of these lasers could clean house. The case is clear glass all the way around, so I assume the laser would shine right through it.

    Sweet - of course Youtube to the rescue:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxeAi0v2DrI

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  9. Do not look at laser with remaining eye by Z8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is cool and all, but I would be scared to go anywhere near that. That's way over class 3 on the laser safety scale and minor reflections could do permanent damage to your eyes. I've played with ~0.5W lasers, and those are scary enough. Apparently this is 1kW! The class 3 limit for pulsed lasers in that frequency is 1/3000th as much apparently (30mW). Basic safety goggles only filter out so much light and you can still get blinded through them.

    I would guess it's just a matter of time before whoever bought this accidentally hits something shiny and the "ricochet" blinds someone.

  10. Total energy by MarchHare · · Score: 2

    One megawatt is one million joules per second. The pulse
    lasts 100 nsec, or 0.1 millionth of a second. If you multiply
    the two, you get the total amount of energy for the pulse... ... 0.1 joule.

    That's about the same amount of energy as lifting a 100 g
    chocolate bar 10 cm vertically in the air....

    1. Re:Total energy by slim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's about the same amount of energy as lifting a 100 g
      chocolate bar 10 cm vertically in the air....

      ... focussed on a tiny point -- it doesn't say how tiny.

      Imagine attaching a needle to that 100g chocolate bar, then dropping it point-first at your hand, from a 10cm height.

  11. Wrong unit by slim · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not all that interesting what the power is, without knowing how long it's applied for. TFA says 100ns.

    1kW * 100ns = 0.0001 joules
    1MW * 100ns = 0.1 joules

    Neither of which is very much energy. Next question: how small an area is that energy applied to? Pretty damned small, I'm assuming, if it's going to punch a hole in a razor blade with that little energy.

  12. It doesn't seem to add up, though by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Informative
    1MW for 100ns = 0.1J, roughly equivalent to dropping 100g a distance of 10cm. 1kW for 100ns = 0.1mJ, equivalent to dropping a 1 gramme mass approx. 1mm. I believe the latter could pop a balloon, but it doesn't seem enough to punch through a razor blade. My memory may be faulty, but I seem to recall it takes of the order of magnitude of 10^10 W/sq cm to do that. Focussing the beam to 10^-7 sq. cm would be quite an achievement.

    Perhaps either the original estimate is correct or the pulse duration is much longer, of the order of 100 microseconds.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  13. Re:Awesome! and effective by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 2

    I would suggest that the same 'punch' as a .22cal kinetic weapon is not necessary. Kinetic weapons rely on the premise of uncontrolled damage for effectiveness (i.e. trauma = stopping 'power'). Energy weapons rely on a potentially different premise: tactical damage -- cleanly disablement of a target's vital system (i.e. disable the brain, heart, nervous system). You see the same effect from other energy weapons, such as a tazer. All it would take for this weapon to disable an enemy human, for example, would be to steam a whole through the chest into the lungs/heart, or through the skull into the brain. Tissue is pretty soft. I can't imagine it would take much more than this example to do it...and think of this: If some backyard engineer created this...what do you think the gargantuan budget of the U.S. military has created?

    Kinetic weapons aren't dead, and won't be for quite a while. Energy weapons are in their infancy, and likely already have a niche. It just isn't advertised yet.

  14. Plasma Ball? by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 2

    Did anyone else watch the video and think that the "Plasma Ball" was actually dust igniting and being pushed along the path of the laser? Or am I the only one annoyed by that part of the video?

  15. dnrtfa by destroygbiv · · Score: 2

    What sort of range do you imagine this things gets?

  16. Re:HAN PUNCHED FIRST! by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's actually spelled Snookiee. A lot of people make that error.

    Not sure which is more sad ... the fact that you know that, or that you think we care. ;-)

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  17. Re:Awesome! and effective by swb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Part of the reason stopping power is such a big deal is that it takes a lot of energy to punch through rib cages and skulls. Most people who die from handgun wounds do so from exsanguination, not disablement of vital organs, and most of these people are shot with cartridges an order of magnitude more powerful than .22 long rifle.

    I suspect that any energy weapon that wants to match a handgun in terms of energy delivered in the same time domain will need to produce at least as much energy to do the damage necessary, or operate on principals similar to a Taser and act on the nervous system.

  18. Yeah, but... by stink_eye · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can I get a phased plasma rifle in a forty watt range?

  19. Re:Talk about cool by Local+ID10T · · Score: 3, Insightful

    30797 fatal crashes occurred in the United States in 2009. Do you really want to add the risk of falling out of the sky to that?

    Yes. More so if I can shoot them out of the sky with my laser pistol :)

    --
    "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
  20. Re:Awesome! and effective by Nadaka · · Score: 2

    Nope:

    A bullets kinetic energy is going up against the crush and shear resistance of the targets tissue. Human tissue is pretty weak against this.

    A lasers thermal energy is going up against the heat capacity of the targets tissue. Water to a slightly lesser degree water saturated tissue that humans have has a ridiculously high heat capacity.

    The kinetic energy of an ak-47 bullet converted to pure thermal energy and applied with 100% efficiency would destroy much less than a cubic centimeter of human tissue.

    Until energy weapons get several orders of magnitude more energy than bullets, they won't be useful as an anti personnel weapon.