Slashdot Mirror


Journalist Gets Blasted By the Pentagon's Pain Ray — Twice

dsinc writes "Wired's Spencer Ackerman voluntarily subjected himself to what the U.S. military calls the Active Denial System, an energy weapon commonly known as the 'Pain Ray' that turns electricity into millimeter wave radio frequency and blasts targets with heat. He describes it thus: 'When the signal goes out over radio to shoot me, there’s no warning — no flash, no smell, no sound, no round. Suddenly my chest and neck feel like they’ve been exposed to a blast furnace, with a sting thrown in for good measure. I’m getting blasted with 12 joules of energy per square centimeter, in a fairly concentrated blast diameter. I last maybe two seconds of curiosity before my body takes the controls and yanks me out of the way of the beam.'" The device has been tested now on over 11,000 people, with only two serious injuries to show for it. However, the device has limitations: rainy weather decreases its effectiveness, and its "boot-up" time is 16 hours, making it useless for breaking up unexpected, impromptu mobs.

60 of 357 comments (clear)

  1. Faster than windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Boots faster than windows...

    1. Re:Faster than windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a joke. Laugh.

    2. Re:Faster than windows by arkane1234 · · Score: 2

      It's in Microsoft minutes.
      *hoop shoot* *score*

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  2. 16 hours? by Haven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What electrical components take 16 hours to boot up?

    What mechanical operation requires 16 hours of prep?

    Any insight? I read the article, and it had very little in the way of information.

    1. Re:16 hours? by Khyber · · Score: 3, Informative

      Getting that much energy stored up and ready for use at 12 joules per square centimeter might be the reason, especially when you take efficiency losses into account.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:16 hours? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I could be completely wrong here but I think it is because you need to create a superconductive state and it takes 16 hours to get cold enough. That's the only thing I can think of.

    3. Re:16 hours? by Dogbertius · · Score: 5, Informative

      The capacitor banks in certain analysis instruments (ie: high precision impedance analyzers) take at least two hours before they are ready to take measurements. The primary reason is that they have to build up the power slowly to avoid stressing the components. Also, they don't want to introduce too much ripple or overshoot, so the charging circuit is effectively overdamped, and has virtually no ripple when fully charged.

      Why something that just pumps out such large amounts of juice needs that long a startup cycle though, I have no idea. My best guess is limitations on the components themselves. Maybe the energy storage elements suffer from charging too quickly, or maybe it has to store plenty of energy in advance to maintain a full-power beam over extended periods of time.

    4. Re:16 hours? by josmith42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I read the article...

      You must be new here.

    5. Re:16 hours? by v1 · · Score: 2

      I can't believe any capacitor takes that amount of time to charge. This isn't like a flash camera that is "pumping" a high voltage capacitor up to a few hundred volts from a pair of AA (1.5volt) batteries that have a slow discharge current. Setups like this have a big gas powered generator in the back of the truck, cranking out thousands of watts of power.

      Capacitors themselves are certainly not the limit, they're specifically known and used for their ability to charge and specifically to discharge extremely rapidly. (like in the above mentioned camera)

      Unless I hear otherwise, I'm chalking this up to "blatantly retarded design". Any capacitor that takes a decent genny 12 hrs to charge will have a building built around it.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    6. Re:16 hours? by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Funny

      Takes that long for the ritualistic sacrifices and dark prayers to Satan to be chanted.

      Not really integral to the function, the design team was just really goth.

    7. Re:16 hours? by Goaway · · Score: 2

      Supracooled components. I've used a gamma-ray spectrometer that took about a day to get running for this reason.

      Not sure why this one would have any of those. Maybe it uses a superconductor?

    8. Re:16 hours? by mindcandy · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is CW Microwave at 95ghz so I'd imagine it takes that long for everything to charge and come into spec frequency-wise, since all of the waveguides and antenna would be very sensitive to SWR if the frequency drifts too badly .. probably to the point of destruction at 100kw PEP.

    9. Re:16 hours? by vlm · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is CW Microwave at 95ghz so I'd imagine it takes that long for everything to charge and come into spec frequency-wise, since all of the waveguides and antenna would be very sensitive to SWR if the frequency drifts too badly .. probably to the point of destruction at 100kw PEP.

      Close not exactly. The highest freq amps I've worked on are just above Ku band and the highest power is a KW or so, so I'm about a factor of 4 low in freq (which in microwave work is practically in their backyard) and low by a factor of 100 in power (which is a big difference).

      Waveguide and antenna for microwave work are pretty much inherently broadband. Unless you're doing it wrong or weird darn near 2:1 is normal. Its not the antenna and waveguide. Combining networks are pretty precise ... wavelength at 100 ghz is what 3 mm or so, so you'd like to build them to a hundredth or better of that, or about 0.03 mm accuracy which isn't all that taxing for a machinist. The point being that its probably not realistic to build something that requires 12 sig figs of freq accuracy if you can't build anything to more than maybe 5 or 6 sig figs of wavelength accuracy even in theory.

      I can purchase off the shelf GPSDO with frequency accuracy better than 10e-11, even better than 10e-12 on a good day, also rubidium oscillators are not that bad. You can build one that takes "16 hours" or whatever to stabilize. Like I figured out above, you can't build an antenna that depends on 11 sig figs of freq stability (this is required for comm purposes, not required to just blast watts downrange to torture people).

      A normal person would engineer in a really good quartz crystal oscillator probably a TXCO which unlike the non-temperature stabilized dip oscilator in you PC that wanders 50 ppm or so, the txco is probably pretty stable to 0.1 or so ppm, or 10e-7, which is better than you can build your wavelength dependent components, so.. also it "boots up" in less than a second.

      The puzzler for me is at 100 GHZ you're gonna use WR8 or WR10 and those do not tolerate more than 10 KW or so before arcing over. High freq = small wavelength = small waveguide = short distance for arc to zap across. My guess is they're using an array of like 10x10 or 100 little 1 KW blasters. Some brave OWS protestor or Ron Paul supporter should walk in front of the beam and see if its got the beamwidth characteristics of an antenna a tenth the size.

      From having been in the Army reserves two decades ago I can guarantee that the army tech manual for my unisys strange btos minicomputer thingy for ammo accounting probably said it can be unpacked, hooked up, restored from backup, tested, blah blah in 16 hours, but in practice, in sane and normal weather and sane and normal conditions we could set up in like one hour or less including running comm cabling for the remote terminals and test suites and everything. But, yes, airdropped into Antarctica with new/untested/not-pre-setup gear and all noob staff doing it the first time "for real" outside of AIT I could see Fing around for 16 hours. I remember at AIT having to do this one inventory operation that was pretty tricky and they gave us 4 hours and I did it in about 45 minutes because I knew what I was doing, but some hopeless cases took darn near the whole 4 hours.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    10. Re:16 hours? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Even with all that time spent reloading the game when you die?

    11. Re:16 hours? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The puzzler for me is at 100 GHZ you're gonna use WR8 or WR10 and those do not tolerate more than 10 KW or so before arcing over.

      You seem to be thinking solid state. Think tubes. I would imagine such a high power device would almost certainly use a gyrotron. With a gyrotron they could output megawatts of power, even in long pulse or CW. I bet L3 Communications (their California Tube Laboratory) made them the gyrotron and maybe designed the whole system as well.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    12. Re:16 hours? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      Batteries. A capacitor bank would be used for a pulsed device, but this device seems to be continuous wave. So we are probably talking batteries + inverter + high voltage transformer. Ultimately what you want for a device like this is a high voltage DC current. So after the transformer the AC is probably converted back to DC again before powering the CW gyrotron. Actually the device could use short duty cycle pulses, but in that case the capacitor charge time would probably be measured in milliseconds or nanoseconds not in hours.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    13. Re:16 hours? by idontgno · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ADS is a Raytheon product. They're already pretty good at high-energy microwave systems. And the know a little about tubes, since that was their original product line.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    14. Re:16 hours? by vlm · · Score: 3, Informative

      WR8 and WR10 are standard waveguide sizes not transistors. I guess you'd say its sort of the microwave RF equivalent of singlemode optical fiber.

      Like down around 10 GHz you use standard size WR90, etc.

      The waveguide wouldn't arc over if you increase the dimensions... however that increases the wavelength the waveguide operates at such that it would no longer be 100 GHz waveguide it would be 50 GHz waveguide or whatever.

      Waveguide is singlemode, obviously (?) over a bit less than a 2:1 wavelength range.

      You can theoretically run multimode, after all waveguide is high pass (hold a piece up in the air and look thru it...), but thats... considered kinda crazy. Crazy enough to work, maybe, if you spent enough money modeling it. Have to think about that. I bet someone is making a fat stack of cash off this crazy thing.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    15. Re:16 hours? by Savantissimo · · Score: 2

      1 horsepower = 746W.
      100kW = 134hp
      Watts = J/s ; generic unit of power, nothing to do specifically with electricity.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    16. Re:16 hours? by vlm · · Score: 2

      So for high frequencies in the millimeter wave range you are stuck using small waveguides?

      Yeah small wavelength means small waveguides, unless you do something weird like multimode, or don't use waveguide, or do strange things.

      I would guess that 140 PSI air would not detune a waveguide frequency "too much" although it would have some effect, but the main result is it would take about 10 times the voltage to arc over.

      I wonder how they deal with that limitation when megawatt class gyrotrons at say 170 Ghz are used in particle accelerator applications.

      I am unable to get a straight answer on this. Pulsed operation means you're all done before the arc fully ionizes? They seem to be vaporware since there's nothing online.

      No microwave RF "devices in general" are very efficient. Megawatts in of DC current with kilowatts out of RF? OK. Multiple megawatts in an A megawatt out with multiple megawatts of heat, well thats going to vaporize anything "170 GHZ sized" rather quickly.

      Could be the usual output of combiners "marketing". I know a guy with a "60 watt" 1296 MHz amp using hybrid amplifier modules. No such thing exists (at that time) as a 60 watt hybrid module in that frequency range. He did have two off the shelf 30 watt modules with a reasonably efficient combiner network, all packaged up in the same box...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  3. Wear Foil! by owenferguson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Would a foil suit help? Can we reflect it back at the source somehow?

    1. Re:Wear Foil! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wear a foil hat all the time. It seems to disable the mind reading abilities of the satellites that the United States government uses.

      That's really the only thing you need to worry about. I'm thinking of having foil implanted on the inside of my skull for a more permanent solution. I just hope the person performing the surgery isn't a reptile. He or she or it might kill me on the operating table. You know how They are. They are always plotting against us, and they have been slithering around in the highest offices for so long...

    2. Re:Wear Foil! by bhcompy · · Score: 2

      Fillings?

  4. Uh, what by ShooterNeo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, I get that this baby is running on beta hardware. But 16 hours? Can anyone here venture a guess as to why? No matter how sllloooowww the CPUs, or how inefficient the code, 16 hours isn't plausible.

    So, it must refer to something the hardware is doing. Still, 16 hours? Thermodynamics is normally quicker than that for a machine that can fit on a truck. That's an awfully long time for it to be heating up or cooling down.

    Any RF engineers here know a reason for this? My best guess is that components of this device rely on superconductivity, and require very slow peltier coolers to bring the operating temperature down to the range of operation. I've seen radios sold on ebay that use superconductors for parts of the RF elements.

    1. Re:Uh, what by Goaway · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is a pretty common time for cooling down to liquid nitrogen or superconducting temperatures.

    2. Re:Uh, what by vlm · · Score: 2

      Those vacuum tubes were instant on in comparison to the way integrated circuits need to "warm" up now.

      My LCD tv starts up about 50% slower than the CRT it replaced.

      My DVD player takes at least 5 minutes longer to start than the VCR it replaced (or so it seems due to prohibited user ops, strange boot time (why if the power is applied does it take 10 seconds to respond to the door open button, that is just bizarre slow)

      TRS-80 color computer boot up time in 1981, about 1 second. Windows XP in 2012, about 1 minute.

      Ma Bell 2600 model/series analog telephone boot up time in 1992, zero (boot up time, whats that?) 5 GHz cordless spread spectrum phone boot up time two minutes from a dead start of base and handset.

      Very first cell phone I ever saw, a Radio Shack analog AMPS bag phone from the mid 80s-ish, power on to making calls seemed to be at most a couple seconds. Android cellphone now takes "around a minute".

      The newer it is, the slower it works. Weird but almost always true. Find me something in 2012 with a lower latency UI than 1982. Bet you cannot.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  5. Corner reflector by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you ever go to a protest where you expect the government to use one of these on you, bring a buch of corner reflectors.. They can be bought in boat stores, or made cheaply out of paper lined with aluminum foil, and they will send the "pain ray" right back at the operator.

    1. Re:Corner reflector by sideslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good luck with that. If you are successful, you will be accused of doing horrible things to a law enforcement person, and will be locked away for a very, very long time. The prosecution will describe the effects of the heat ray in very different terms than the defense would, if the tables were turned and you were suing law enforcement for using it on you.

    2. Re:Corner reflector by jittles · · Score: 2

      Oh my god, why do you think that you can use comic books as a guide to life? Second, you would need to know who is shooting the pain ray at you (i.e. which policeman) and bring your device up in time and aim it correctly. Remember, there is no warning before shot, you have to see and prepare in advance.

      Actually, a properly deployed corner reflector will shoot it back in the general direction of the shooter. That's the whole point of the device. They are used to create strong radar returns. They're used on boats and such things to make it easier to see other vessels.

  6. Hmm... by owenferguson · · Score: 2

    Given the weird operational profile, I can see this being used for psy-op. Flashing people with pain from afar, seemingly for no reason. Is that too MK-ULTRA to think about?

    1. Re:Hmm... by TheLink · · Score: 2

      For psy-ops you'd probably want to add this:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5imaJwfJMZ8#t=0m55s
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound

      That way you can "Voice of God" someone with the sound beam without anyone hearing, and punish them with the pain beam as "proof".

      --
  7. Less Effective by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sounds less effective, most costly, and more dangerous then tear gas.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Less Effective by billcopc · · Score: 4, Funny

      It is the American way (tm).

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    2. Re:Less Effective by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      Sounds less effective, most costly, and more dangerous then tear gas.

      Tear gas is generally the wrong instrument anyway, because you not only tear gas the mob, but also the entire neighborhood. WTO riots in Seattle for example. They used tear gas on 20-40 people (if you took out the photographers and journalists, another 20-40 people) in the street on Capitol Hill. An hour later they had hundreds screaming angry people in the street and outside the Police Station who were upset about getting tear gassed while sitting in their own homes. Then there were the businesses that were open and running just fine but had to be shut down due to tear gas. They gasses out the entire Pike Place Market the next day and all the food there had to be destroyed because they covered it all with tear gas. A directional beam that didn't penetrate walls would have been much better solution. Although cops with de-escuation training who didn't feel they had to be judge, jury and punisher would have been even better.

  8. Tube filaments. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Funny

    Everybody knows that you can't get that perfect warmth without tubes.

  9. Re:future weapons ? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Depends on your frame of reference. Something that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away may not have happened here yet. If it happened 5m years ago (their time) in a galaxy 5.1m lightyears away then it's still 100,000 years in our future.

    Hey, you started it.

    --
    Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
  10. Torture by sideslash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why is it OK in public spaces for law enforcement and the military to use extreme pain from heat rays and Tasers (TM) to force people to do what they want, yet it's not OK in a private cell to force somebody through pain to share information? We can torture people without leaving permanent physical injury, just like with the heat ray. So do we as a society really have moral qualms about torturing people because of the pain, or is it purely a pragmatic decision based on the low signal to noise ratio of intelligence from tortured prisoners?

    1. Re:Torture by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 2

      I believe the argument is that rioters have the option of just walking away and those being arrested have the option of just complying. (Ignoring, of course, when cops taser people unnecessarily.)

    2. Re:Torture by f3rret · · Score: 2

      Good point.

      If I got to be pragmatic about it, it's because torture generally doesn't produce good results. Torture someone for long enough and they'll admit to anything.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    3. Re:Torture by JustinOpinion · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's that. There's also the fact that these non-lethal weapons are intended to be used against someone who is being violent: in other words, they are a last resort to subdue someone out of control before they do serious harm to someone, whether that be another citizen (either protestor or bystander), a police officer, or even the person hurting themselves. The purpose in using a non-lethal weapon is that in doing this harm to them, you will prevent a much greater harm.

      Which, really, highlights how inappropriately all these non-lethal weapons and anti-riot instruments are used nowadays. They've gone from 'preventing imminent violence and harm' to 'making someone unstable easier to deal with' to 'a way to subdue someone, no different from handcuffing them really'. It's positively criminal and evil how thoughtlessly devices like tasers, rubber bullets, and mace are used nowadays by law enforcement. These things were designed as last resorts and are now being used routinely. If a person is being disruptive but there is no imminent threat of harm, then these tools should not be used. Even if the person has clearly broken a law and needs to be arrested, these tools should be avoided: the person should be subdued peacefully somehow (sometimes this means just waiting, letting them yell and whatnot, until they tire themselves out and can be safely arrested).

    4. Re:Torture by sideslash · · Score: 2

      OK, so what if you re-classified the torture as a compliance enforcement mechanism rather than as a punishment? Would that make it OK, just like in the crowd control situation? Clearly it's very desirable for detainees to comply with our demand that they give us information about criminals and terrorists. (Playing devil's advocate, but hopefully making a point.)

    5. Re:Torture by Whatsisname · · Score: 2

      My guess is most people probably simply haven't though about it.

      http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_coleman_the_moral_dangers_of_non_lethal_weapons.html

      A highlight of this video is a datapoint from Australia, when pepper (OC spray) was introduced. Officers were specifically instructed that it was to be used only when the officer would have otherwise been required to use lethal force. The years before the OC spray was introduced, there were about 6 people shot to death by the police year. The two years after the spray was introduced, in a trial, there were 2226 usages of the spray.

      Surely, had OC spray not been available, that the police would not have shot 2226 people.

  11. Re:future weapons ? by Hentes · · Score: 4, Funny

    The device has been tested now on over 11,000 people, with only two serious injuries to show for it.

    Doesn't sound like an effective weapon to me.

  12. Other unfortunate uses by JeanCroix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sixteen hours warmup might be far too long for use as crowd control, but it's plenty of time for use in interrogations.

  13. Re:future weapons ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Umm, no it's still in the past; we just have to wait until we get to see it.

  14. Right answer, wrong question by srussia · · Score: 4, Funny

    The proper resistance mantra is:

    I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear... I will permit it to pass over me and through me.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:Right answer, wrong question by Nimey · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, the proper resistance mantra is R=V/I.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  15. Re:future weapons ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Please, do explain to us what simultaneity means in galaxies separated by 5.1 million light years.

  16. 1 out of 5500 people is severely injured? by gcnaddict · · Score: 2

    That's at least one major lawsuit per protest broken up. Good luck getting any major civilian police force to risk that. The only place this has any use would be a battlefield, where lawsuits are irrelevant.

    --
    Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:1 out of 5500 people is severely injured? by tomhath · · Score: 2

      Still better odds than rubber bullets and tear gas.

    2. Re:1 out of 5500 people is severely injured? by metrometro · · Score: 2

      At the 2008 GOP presidential convention (St Paul), the police were insured against civil rights liabilities by a "host committee" funded by private interests. Think that one through.

      So, yes, police will "risk that" because they are insured against that risk, with someone else paying the premiums.

      Citation: http://www.globalintegrity.org/node/488

  17. Re:The same old problem with non-lethal weapons by pz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There was an instance of non-lethal weapon abuse by a Boston policeman who shot a Red Sox reveler with a projectile that's supposed to only cause the sensation of burning, like pouring hot sauce on the skin. It's like a targeted remote pepper spray. Problem is, the policeman hit this poor woman in the eye. She died as a result of the injury.

    The words "non-lethal weapon" should more accurately be written as "not-usually-lethal weapon". A weapon designed to hurt enough to seriously distract everyone it is used against cannot be non-lethal in all cases, given the wide range of physiologies found in humans, and the wide ranges of unanticipated potential uses. While one might argue whether the officer in question above should have aimed at this student's head (if the weapons are so inaccurate that they cannot be controlled well enough to avoid hitting someone in the head, or if the officer was inadequately trained or prepared to do so, then that is another matter entirely), because he did hit her in the head that must therefore be an anticipated use. Thus this particular paintball-like weapon, and by extension, all non-lethal weapons, must be considered less lethal, but certainly not non-lethal.
     

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  18. Re:And is easily defeated... by CompMD · · Score: 3, Funny

    Last time I slapped on a baklava, it took me an hour to get the honey and nuts out of my beard.

  19. Re:future weapons ? by malilo · · Score: 3, Informative

    5.1 million ly is not that far, actually (twice the distance to Andromeda). A galaxy at that distance would be in our local group, and it's redshift will be dominated by it's local motions, not the Hubble flow.

    --
    "sometimes he felt that his whole life was a dream, and he wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it."
  20. Ka-me-ha-me-HA!!! by goofyspouse · · Score: 2

    Sixteen hours? Anyone else picture Goku charging up the Kamehameha attack on Dragonball Z?

  21. I saw this on TV the other day by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reporter said that the injuries that were sustained were 2nd degree burns because the people didn't get out the way quick enough.

    But what if you can't get out of the way? If you are trapped you could easily sustain 2nd or 3rd degree burns over quite a bit of your body - and that sort of thing is potentially lethal.

    This device is non-lethal in the sense that a bullet is non-lethal. I shoot someone in the hand they probably don't die. I shoot someone in the head and they will probably die.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  22. Re:future weapons ? by NormalVisual · · Score: 2

    ex: a pulse of light is shot from the Earth to the moon. The pulse takes ~12 seconds to arrive.

    Closer to 1.3 seconds...

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  23. Injury depends on length of exposure. by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I last maybe two seconds of curiosity before my body takes the controls and yanks me out of the way of the beam

    The person who was injured in the testing was overexposed. So if used outside the lab your going to have injured people. People will fall down and if the machine is ran to long they will be burned. This is similer to the LRAD system that uses sounds instead of microwaves. It has already been used by law enformcement and has caused hearing loss on someone who fell down.

  24. Resistance... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Funny

    Has to be reflective, though; if it's just resistive/dissipative, then you're wrapped in flaming fabric.

    So with these things resistance really is futile.

  25. Re:future weapons ? by kegel+dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So you're basically saying, like Obi-Wan, that it depends on "your point of view"?