Slashdot Mirror


Army Creates a Directed Lightning Bolt Weapon

Sparticus789 writes "Army researchers at Picatinny Labs in New Jersey have developed a prototype weapon which uses a directed lightning bolt to destroy vehicles and unexploded ordinance. The weapon works on the premise that 'A target, an enemy vehicle or even some types of unexploded ordnance, would be a better conductor than the ground it sits on.' Are we one step closer to C&C:Red Alert Tesla coils?"

214 comments

  1. lightning to stop cars ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does NOT work. the car would not be affected enough by that.

    1. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by queBurro · · Score: 1

      steel tracked tank?

      --
      sag
    2. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Correct. 'Top Gear' demonstrated this with a presenter sitting inside the car while it sustained multiple artificial lightning strikes at a test center in Germany.

    3. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One, Top Gear is an entertainment show and should not be relied on as a source of facts, and two, humans cannot produce artificial lightning with the intensity of normal lightning.

      That said, that doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion is wrong, but...

      --
      Rhetorical questions suck. Why ask a question if you don't want an answer?
    4. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      It's a crowd-taser...

    5. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yes it would. even if the car's body makes it a faraday cage, it's also the ground for the electrical system. thousands of on the body would fry everything electric connected to the ground, even if the passengers remain unaffected.

    6. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by slashmydots · · Score: 2

      You sort of buried the lead there. It also "does NOT work" in that it's not a targeted lightning bolt. It will hit whatever conducts the most electricity, so yeah, not cars in most cases and if it did, it wouldn't do much. But also, if you want to hit something that doesn't conduct more electricity than the thing next to it, you can't. That's not "directed," that's physics.

      Directed lighting would project a slight ionic or otherwise charged particle trail towards a target that lightning would travel down, similar to how lightning strikes freaky-looking invisible charged particle tendrils coming off of ground objects during storms. I can't find that famous picture of them but you've probably all at least heard about how your hair rises for a few seconds before getting hit by lightning so if you feel it, you should run like hell or get as low as possible to break the static charge buildup trail rising into the air. So a directed gun would have to create an artificial path similar to that and launch the lightning down it.

    7. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, the Z-pinches that some Physicists create are more powerful than lightning in various measures.

    8. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by Medievalist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Does NOT work. the car would not be affected enough by that.

      One of my cow-orkers had his car struck by lightning while he was crossing the railroad tracks on US Rt 9 by Old New Castle. This happened in front of multiple witnesses in the middle of a slightly overcast day with light rain on and off, but the car was reasonably dry at the time. The entire car was enveloped by a blue corona and the driver said the light and noise inside the car was terrifying.

      But nobody was harmed and the engine didn't even stop. The metal shell of the car completely protected it. It's unclear what would have happened if the radio had been on, but I'd expect a blown accessory fuse.

    9. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by SpectreBlofeld · · Score: 0

      Yes, Top Gear is an entertainment show. However, they demonstrated this with a presenter sitting inside the car while it sustained multiple artificial lightning strikes at a test center in Germany.

    10. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      One of my cow-orkers had his car struck by lightning while he was crossing the railroad tracks

      So are you a farmer, or part of the herd?

    11. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not much on reading are you? That's exactly what this does.

      The lightning is guided in a laser-induced plasma channel, then it deviates from the channel when it gets close to the target and has a lower-resistance path to ground.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    12. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by tsa · · Score: 1

      The keyword here being Germany. They have no humour there and they don't know what 'entertainment' is.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    13. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      What kind of car? An old one with a mechanical carburetor, or one with a modern computer-controlled fuel-injected engine?

    14. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      A car in general will not be very vulnerable to any weapon that requires a grounded path - because a car isn't grounded typically..

      Now, add the directed bit to a dart connected to a wire or something which completes the circuit, and you may have some different results. Very interesting article though, I feel like they are probably far beyond this in reality, this was just approved for public consumption. Wonder how long the battery on that sucker lasts...

    15. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      What kind of car? An old one with a mechanical carburetor, or one with a modern computer-controlled fuel-injected engine?

      Fuel-injected modern car. No data on old ones... although I wonder what would happen to the magneto on a Model T Ford? Seems like a pretty big coil in there.

    16. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by Rei · · Score: 2

      Not in net joules, though. Z-machine does, what, about 10MJ? Strong lightning bolts are measured in GJ.

      --
      Rhetorical questions suck. Why ask a question if you don't want an answer?
    17. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by Rei · · Score: 1

      What part of and two, humans cannot produce artificial lightning with the intensity of normal lightning. was confusing? For that matter, what part of Top Gear "should not be relied on for facts" was tricky - they're famous for making stuff up for humor/entertainment value, so long as it's something that won't get them sued.

      --
      Rhetorical questions suck. Why ask a question if you don't want an answer?
    18. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Not in net joules, though. Z-machine does, what, about 10MJ? Strong lightning bolts are measured in GJ."

      Sorry to nitpick, I know you clearly must not be as versed in science as I, but I must inform you that lightning is actually measured in gigawatts, sir. 1.21 of them, to be exact.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    19. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Of course they know what entertainment is in Germany! Did you miss Angela Merkel's song and dance routine in Brussels?

    20. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One of my cow-orkers"

      A woman, I take it.

      I'm guessing a man would have been a bull-orker.

    21. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "even if the car's body makes it a faraday cage, it's also the ground for the electrical system. thousands of on the body would fry everything electric connected to the ground, even if the passengers remain unaffected."

      No, sorry. You obviously don't understand how this works. Yes, the car's chassis is ground for the car's electrical system ... RELATIVE TO THE BATTERY SYSTEM, which has NOTHING to do with anything external. Now, if you get your lightning bolt to hit the positive terminal of said battery, I have no doubt all of the electronics in the car would fry.

    22. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      lightning is actually measured in jiggawatts

      FTFY

    23. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      The ground is the ground for the entire national power grid. When a lightning bolt hits the ground every device in the country will be fried! Oh wait, that's not how it works. Go back to school.

    24. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      He just enjoys orking cows

    25. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like Tesla's Death Ray.
      http://davidszondy.com/future/tesla/teslaray.htm

    26. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by tsa · · Score: 1

      I must admit that I missed that, yes. Do you have a link?

      --

      -- Cheers!

    27. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friend of mine in Lincoln, NE vehicle was struck by lightening on Hwy. 2. It fried all the electronics on board and burned a hole in the fender where it arced to ground. He was fine but it scarred the bejeezus out of him and left him stranded on an empty highway in southeast Nebraska. This was in the days prior to cell phones.

    28. Re:lightning to stop cars ? by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      Do you know if your friend had the radio on? I've often wondered what would have happened if my cow-orker had an active electrical path leading into the car when it was struck.

      Another possible explanation for the difference is that he was crossing a railroad track (extremely good ground path) and I'm assuming (since you didn't mention it) that your friend in Lincoln was not, when he was struck.

  2. Resonant fields by hoboroadie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what I got into science for.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    1. Re:Resonant fields by qu33ksilver · · Score: 4, Funny

      So do we need Mjolnir for this ?

    2. Re:Resonant fields by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has nothing to do with sharks

    3. Re:Resonant fields by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Yeah... the rest of us kinda noticed.

      Einstein would spit on you. Just saying.

    4. Re:Resonant fields by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shock and awe!

    5. Re:Resonant fields by MattskEE · · Score: 2

      Resonance isn't necessarily involved and certainly isn't required. Given that they will want a brief but high energy electrical pulse they much more likely are using a Marx Generator than any type of resonant transformer (e.g. Tesla Coil). This is supported by the fact that Marx Generators are one of Applied Energetics specialties. Otherwise it may simply be a single pulse cap possible with PFN or pulse transformer.

    6. Re:Resonant fields by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find you relatively cynical.

    7. Re:Resonant fields by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      or fricken lasers for that matter.

  3. it's "Ordnance" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ordinance = A piece of legislation enacted by a municipal authority; An authoritative order; a decree.
    Ordnance = Military weapons, ammunition, and equipment used with them.

    1. Re:it's "Ordnance" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who says they're not going to destroy some legislation with this puppy?

    2. Re:it's "Ordnance" by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      I don't think ordinances are very conductive

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:it's "Ordnance" by Cosgrach · · Score: 4, Funny

      My guess is that they will first go after the Declaration of Independence.

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    4. Re:it's "Ordnance" by SpzToid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ordinances can be conducive to a great many things.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    5. Re:it's "Ordnance" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think the Bill of Rights would make a more likely first target.

    6. Re:it's "Ordnance" by SirAdelaide · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the internet, ordnance is "Origin: 1620–30; syncopated variant of ordinance". So ordnance is just a very old spelling mistake. The original is ordinance. Which suits both congress and war for the same reason; in both settings ordinance is used for shooting your enemy.

      --
      I'm a fruit pirate. I bought a watermelon once, and spat the seeds in the back yard. They grew into another watermelon,
    7. Re:it's "Ordnance" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      It's already dead.

    8. Re:it's "Ordnance" by catmistake · · Score: 1

      even some types of unexploded ordnance

      There is ordnance, and there is exploding ordnance. There is no such thing as exploded ordnance. I wonder if the bits of complex aggregated supernova that wrote the summary looks up at the night sky and ponders the twinkling unexploded nova and the stunning unexploded supernova until the extremely undissipated gas cloud rises.

    9. Re:it's "Ordnance" by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      They are if they use conductive ink.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    10. Re:it's "Ordnance" by geogob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It may be so, but in 2012 ordinance and ordnance have distinct definition and you should use one in the context of the other. This distinction is in use since the 15th century and has been accepted in every English dictionaries I know. But it is absolutely correct that some ordinance may cause more harm than some ordnance.

    11. Re:it's "Ordnance" by geogob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They may be no exploded ordnance as once it exploded, it's not ordnance anymore.
      Unexploded ordnance refers to ordnance that was used, supposed to explode, but did not and often still poses a risk of exploding. At this point it generally cannot be reused.

      Disposing of unexploded ordnance is quite delicate. I see it almost monthly as they find bombs or shells from WW2 on many constructions sites. In cities, the usual process is to remove the triggering mechanism, transport the unexploded ordnance to a save location and destroy it.

      In remote location, for example in mine fields, the ordnance is usually destroyed on site. With a controlled lightning bolt-like discharge, you may even be able to destroy the ordnance without having found its exact location. This would significantly accelerate mine removal process and make it much safer.

    12. Re:it's "Ordnance" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find the first one to be much scarier...

    13. Re:it's "Ordnance" by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      I don't think ordinances are very conductive

      Any members/representatives carrying said ordinance are, though.
      It would definitely help us get less ordinance in the future (albeit for a short time)

    14. Re:it's "Ordnance" by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      ordinance = has the potential to cause untold mayhem, destruction and loss of life
      ordnance = just an explosive ammunition

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
    15. Re:it's "Ordnance" by Rei · · Score: 2

      Not only that, but it should be quite effective. The whole point of a blasting cap is to deliver enough energy in a single brief burst (aka, a lot more than the proportionally weak electric charge that ignites it). Wouldn't be surprised if a strong bolt of lightning like this could pack a punch similar to a blasting cap. Or at least set off an existing cap!

      I actually conceived of this idea several years back, of laser-guided lightning bolts. I did some research and found that the idea was already being actively pursued. Now looks like it finally makes Slashdot. :) My favorite part is the freakishly straight line path the lightning takes until it nears its target.

      --
      Rhetorical questions suck. Why ask a question if you don't want an answer?
    16. Re:it's "Ordnance" by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Merriam-Webster indicates that while they both share the same Middle English root word of "ordinaunce" (which came from the Anglo-French word "ordenance" that carried a meaning one could apply to both "ordnance" and "ordinance"), the one was not derived from the other. It also dates the first known uses for both of the words to the 14th century, which predates your citation by a few hundred years. Your claims of a spelling error seem spurious, and even if they are not, it's pointless to "correct" a spelling error that has become a part of every modern dictionary and is understood by most everyone to denote a separate word.

    17. Re:it's "Ordnance" by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Military speak. As others have said, it's ordnance that failed to go boom. Destruction of said unexploded ordnance is one of the things anti-material rifles and EOD bots are used for. "Explosive ordnance" is actually a thing, too - ordance that is intended to explode on use (vs something like a bullet)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    18. Re:it's "Ordnance" by randizzle3000 · · Score: 1

      Only in Amerca

    19. Re:it's "Ordnance" by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Actually it's military jargon for ordnance that's failed to go off as intended. It should have exploded, but it didn't. The abbreviation is UXO. Like most jargon, and language in general, literal correctness is less important than preciseness, and unexploded ordnance has a very specific definition.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    20. Re:it's "Ordnance" by Cabriel · · Score: 1

      Is it understood by everyone to denote a separate word? Appears to me that only a few people noticed and even fewer care.

    21. Re:it's "Ordnance" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe lightning bolt weapons violate the ordnance ordinance.

    22. Re:it's "Ordnance" by swampfriend · · Score: 1

      In cities, the usual process is to remove the triggering mechanism, transport the unexploded ordnance to a save location and destroy it.

      So that if the explosion is too big and kills you, you can just load and move farther away next time.

    23. Re:it's "Ordnance" by lennier · · Score: 1

      Ordinance = A piece of legislation enacted by a municipal authority; An authoritative order; a decree.
      Ordnance = Military weapons, ammunition, and equipment used with them.

      "The last argument of kings".

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    24. Re:it's "Ordnance" by geogob · · Score: 1

      The ordnance disposal teams know their work. They know exactly how far they have to be and how well protected. They leave very little to chance. They also evacuate the areas at risk before defusing, securing and transporting the unexploded ordnance. Not too long ago, they found a 4000 lbs bomb from WW2 in the Rhine in Koblenz. They evacuate about half the city...
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16018659

      But even if they know what they are doing, I wouldn't want to do their jobs...

    25. Re:it's "Ordnance" by swampfriend · · Score: 1

      i was making a joke about save points in video games :(

  4. Bad summary and old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    What a terrible fucking summary. Also, this has been all over the web for nearly a week.

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

    It works by ionizing the air with a UV laser to create a path of lowered resistance for the arc to follow.

    1. Re:Bad summary and old news by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Funny

      What a terrible fucking summary. Also, this has been all over the web for nearly a week.

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

      It works by ionizing the air with a UV laser to create a path of lowered resistance for the arc to follow.

      Yes and the headline stinks too, to be in any kind of sync with the usual /. hyperbole it should have been: "Army, inspired by id Soft's DOOM, creates it's own BFG9000!".

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    2. Re:Bad summary and old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"Army, inspired by id Soft's DOOM, creates it's own BFG9000!".
      More like inspired by Tesla

    3. Re:Bad summary and old news by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Tesla inventy plenty of things (and dreamed of plenty more), but I don't recall anything regarding an "aimed" lightning bolt you could fire at nothing in particular (no oppositely charged or neutral target to attract the arc).

    4. Re:Bad summary and old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A week? I remember reading about this exact technology over ten years ago... Only thing that's changed is the size of the device.

    5. Re:Bad summary and old news by GrpA · · Score: 1

      What if you used two lasers, one negatively charged lightning and one positively charged lightning and sent it out over distance like a big loop?

      That could fire at nothing in particular couldn't it? The beam sources could even be some distance apart then...

      GrpA

      --
      Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
    6. Re:Bad summary and old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      just don't cross the streams

    7. Re:Bad summary and old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla invented plenty of things (and dreamed of plenty more), but I don't recall anything regarding an "aimed" lightning bolt you could fire at nothing in particular (no oppositely charged or neutral target to attract the arc).

      His version was based on firing a drop of high-velocity mercury(? maybe it was just some molten metal) at the target and the electricity following the trail of that droplet. I'd give a link to the information if I could remember where I saw it. He was already unfunded at the time, so no big prototypes to show off.

    8. Re:Bad summary and old news by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      I feel like I'm missing a culture reference here. If not, let me know when someone creates a "positive" charged lightning and we'll revisit your whole "lightning loop" idea again...

  5. Oh god I want one! by spokenoise · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is my dream device. I have sat on my bike, in my car and had someone do something so stupid. Now I can fry the snot outa something and nothing left to say it was me!

    1. Re:Oh god I want one! by physburn · · Score: 1

      Plus its More humane than flying lead!

  6. Defence? by dohzer · · Score: 1

    Make the C&C:Red Alert Tesla Coils more offensive by mounting them on trucks. Then the US would be interested in them!

    1. Re:Defence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the US would be interested in them!

      Especially because they were more effective against people than vehicles.

    2. Re:Defence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, Shock Trooper in MPV?

  7. Skin Effect Anyone? by triffid_98 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With all apologies to Nikola and his 'Death Ray', wouldn't the skin effect of ultra high voltage used for these kind of arcs make this totally useless as a weapon? The bits you want to zap are inside the external metal casing. They are not the easiest path to ground, therefore they are not getting any significant juice.

    1. Re:Skin Effect Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      With all apologies to Nikola and his 'Death Ray', wouldn't the skin effect of ultra high voltage used for these kind of arcs make this totally useless as a weapon? The bits you want to zap are inside the external metal casing. They are not the easiest path to ground, therefore they are not getting any significant juice.

      Only at high frequencies is the skin effect a notable factor, though it is present at a minor degree at lower frequencies. The proximity effect is more of a detractor anyway. Besides - actual lightning is pure electrostatic DC anyway, though the high speed of the pulse up/down state carries an AC component due to the changing magnetic field that results.

      So no, the skin effect would not turn any arbitrary casing into an alternate conductor unless HF is used. But if the target is surrounded by a dense gold shield rammed deep into the earth, they are safe from this weapon (though bullets not so much).

      -Raphael, Silicon News author.

    2. Re:Skin Effect Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skin effect comes from frequency (AC), not amplitude (voltage)

    3. Re:Skin Effect Anyone? by mwfischer · · Score: 1

      that's why you shoot them first.

      this is clearly a finishing move

    4. Re:Skin Effect Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Two things I see as potential roadblocks to deploying this as a useful enemy deterrent:

      1) I thought laser weaponry was outlawed in the Geneva Convention, or any other maiming weapon (eg, lasers because they can blind you).

      2) Lasers can be reflected. What happens when I tweak the cage on my LAV into a Faraday cage, add some shiny mirrors, and innovative way to ground my vehicle?

    5. Re:Skin Effect Anyone? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      LASER weaponry intended to blind was outlawed by the Geneva Convention. If the primary purpose of the laser is some purpose other than blinding troops, they are perfectly fine. In this case, the LASER isn't even the weapon, as it is just a part of the targeting system. In any case, the US never signed the Geneva Convention, and merely chooses to follow it at its own convenience.

    6. Re:Skin Effect Anyone? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Unless you have a high enough current to make the voltage drop between the roof of the car and the floor large enough to create an arc a "dense gold shield rammed deep into the earth" is not required. Copper is a better and cheaper conductor of electricity by the way. Aluminium is nearly as good and even cheaper and lighter. The author of a credible technology news site should know that.

    7. Re:Skin Effect Anyone? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Skin effect comes from a change in current, not voltage.

  8. Darwin Awards by Circlotron · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm wondering who will be first to aim the laser at a storm cloud :-P

    1. Re:Darwin Awards by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      Power company? Doc Brown and Marty?

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:Darwin Awards by Adriax · · Score: 2

      Will one of the lightning drones gain sentience from the lightning and start calling itself Number 5?

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    3. Re:Darwin Awards by Roachie · · Score: 2

      Answer: The last one to aim the laser at a storm cloud.

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    4. Re:Darwin Awards by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking that if Skippy was still in the Army, that would make the list.

    5. Re:Darwin Awards by tangelogee · · Score: 1

      No disassemble!

    6. Re:Darwin Awards by damien_kane · · Score: 2

      Number 5's makers called it Number 5 (as in Prototype #5)
      Upon gaining sentience and acquiring input, Number 5 decided to call himself "Johnny"

    7. Re:Darwin Awards by slew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you are an avid /. reader, you might rememberthat some scientists tried shooting a laser at a cloud attempting to induce a lightning strike on Sept 24, 2004.

      Apparently they all survived the experience... ;^)

    8. Re:Darwin Awards by f3rret · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering who will be first to aim the laser at a storm cloud :-P

      Scientists already do this, all the time actually.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
  9. Faraday Effect Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking the Faraday Cage effect of the vehicle will protect occupants. Also for the money spent to develop this weapon, how cheap will be the counter-measures?

    1. Re:Faraday Effect Anyone? by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      The occupants will be protected as they are less conductive then the car, the electronics on the the other hand have a good chance of getting fried. Emp generators have been used to stop a car so the car doesn't act as a Faraday cage, it's probably because the car is not grounded and the metal container is not continuous.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    2. Re:Faraday Effect Anyone? by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      Cheap. Tinfoil hat cheap.

  10. They've been trying this for years by artor3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember seeing stories about the anti-vehicle/IED lightning gun back in 2007, maybe earlier. Every single time it comes up, it gets shot down as being utterly impractical. It can't stop vehicles reliably enough to warrant use in a life-or-death situation, and it's a laughably inefficient means of IED detonation (they need to be within arms reach of the bomb to do anything).

    And yet the story keeps coming back. I suspect some congressmen just feel that, like the laser plane, this weapon is too cool to give up on.

    1. Re:They've been trying this for years by a_hanso · · Score: 4, Funny

      Faraday cage. Check mate.

    2. Re:They've been trying this for years by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And yet the story keeps coming back.

      Yes, it comes back every time the research project funding comes up for renewal.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:They've been trying this for years by Roachie · · Score: 2

      I,as well, seem to recall a reference to a "wireless taser" that uses laser ionized atmosphere to direct a charge. I want to think that it was circa 1990s-sometime.

      Now it appears to be a confirmed concept. I wonder what is waiting in the wings?

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    4. Re:They've been trying this for years by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      I've often wondered why they dont use a 2.4ghz band dual chamber resonant klystron for use as a vehicle killer.

      While the vehicle *IS* a conductor, it is not a perfectly effective Faraday cage, as evidenced by morons talking on cellphones, and stealing wifi while wardriving.

      A really high energy microwave beam from a mobile klystron is way more energy efficient, easier to cool, and would be radically more effective at killing the onboard electronics in a modern vehicle. It would also be more effective at killing the occupant, which is probably desirable by military ideals.

      It would require violation of FCC broadcast energy on that band, but since this is the military, they should be exempt anyway. That it would knock out every wifi network for over a mile around, possibly with antenna damage, is potentially useful militarily as well.

      (I am thinking on the order of 200w of broadcast in the directional microwave beam. More than enough to smoke electronics. 700w would be able to cook hotdogs at a distance, but less portable.)

    5. Re:They've been trying this for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What general wants to be the one who turned down the research to make Death Rays?

    6. Re:They've been trying this for years by ThePeices · · Score: 1

      "I wonder what is waiting in the wings?"

      Av-gas?

    7. Re:They've been trying this for years by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      And yet the story keeps coming back. I suspect some congressmen just feel that, like the laser plane, this weapon is too cool to give up on.

      I wonder what you'd have said about heavier-than-air flight in 1890. Or rocketry in 1938. Or... just about any technological advance.

    8. Re:They've been trying this for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My microwave oven is 800W. I think the emitter needs to be pretty close to the hot dog to cook it at that kind of power.

    9. Re:They've been trying this for years by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Funny

      Lightning Weapon?
      Just stand stand where the weapon previously struck and you're virtually impervious.

    10. Re:They've been trying this for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yep as proved by Top gear:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve6XGKZxYxA

    11. Re:They've been trying this for years by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2

      You'd need a decent antenna to do so. 50 DB would help to keep your PSU portable and yourself not affected. And way more power than a measily 200 W. Think 20KW, although each 6 dB your antenna is better will halve the power requirement. A better antenna does mean you have to aim better at a target you may not exactly know where it is. With reflections and all the "hot spot" may not be directly at the part you want to fry.
      Firstly: not all signals will be absorbed by your target, some will miss. In a microwave oven the signal is contained, so the energy that missed its target will bounce around and most of it will be absorbed eventually (since it's light speed we are talking about a small fraction of a microsecond with "eventually").
      Secondly: the car may not be a perfect Faraday cage, but is is shielded. I'd expect about 10% of the energy that's properly directed will enter the car. Most cars have their ECU's under a metal hood. The direct front is usually covered by a metal cooler. These will deflect your signal. It may even be needed to bounce the signal off some part under the hood you can hit directly in order to hit the ECU indirectly. All in all it would be difficult to get it practical.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    12. Re:They've been trying this for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is impossible to outrun a Congress critter's insatiable appetite for pork.

    13. Re:They've been trying this for years by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      A car is not a Faraday cage, there are gaps and it is NOT grounded, if a car were a Faraday cage cell phones would not work in them.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    14. Re:They've been trying this for years by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      You've encased all your vehicles in faraday cages, you are now immune to the "lightning weapon".
      Of course, none of them can communicate with each other unless they open hatches and yell.

      Congratulations?

      --
      -Styopa
    15. Re:They've been trying this for years by gtall · · Score: 1

      So you are saying our secret weapons will be based on Boston baked beans? Isn't that against the Geneva Convention?

    16. Re:They've been trying this for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point of a Faraday cage is not that it's grounded, but that it's an uninterrupted conductor. From my (albeit spotty) recollection of college physics (hey, it was 20 years ago), for a CLOSED conducting surface, external E/M fields will cause effects in the conductor that effectively neutralize the E/M effects to any point enclosed by that conductor. Your mileage may vary for large E/M fields that overwhelm the conductor, breaks in the conductive surface, etc.

    17. Re:They've been trying this for years by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Cellphones would not work in cars in the wavelength was larger than the windows (or maybe its 1/2 or 1/4 of the wavelength, I forget.) Why do you think the radio antenna is outside the car? AM radio is in the ~300m wavelength and FM is ~4m

    18. Re:They've been trying this for years by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Most cars have their ECU's under a metal hood." Um. no. Most cars have their ECUs inside the passenger cabin for maximum environmental protection. [Some (VW group) then cock that up by placing the ECU on the floor of the cabin under the carpet, making them easily screwed up by corrosion if there happens to be any kind of leak (I've seen this happen in different vehicles from a bad heater matrix, poor windscreen repair and quite simply from leaving the front windows down and the car getting caught in a torrential downpour) or if the car is driven into floodwaters.]

  11. Typos again... by afterthought · · Score: 1

    Unexploded laws? It should be "ordnance."

    1. Re:Typos again... by macraig · · Score: 1

      Makes one wonder if Slashdot is now entirely staffed by part-time college-dropout interns who just ghost-edit, eh?

    2. Re:Typos again... by Lord+Lode · · Score: 1

      What the heck do they mean by an "unexploded ordnance"? Anything that hasn't been exploded yet? We must explode more things to get rid of all those unexploded ordnances!

    3. Re:Typos again... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      once explosive ordnance has been made it has 3 possible states.

      1 Unused
      2 Used (of course this would normally be called Shrapnel or Debris)
      3 Fired but not detonated (various miss fire states this would be normally referred to as unexploded ordnance)

      the big problem is that whatever caused it to not explode may be "fixed" at any time bad if it happens on its own very bad if a person is present and very bad if a KID is present.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  12. natural development by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    There has long been a prototype of a taser which uses lasers to ionize a path. This from the same guys?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. One word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zot!

  14. The army's budget by Thanshin · · Score: 0

    They have clearly too much money in their hands.

    Instead of spending millions on dumb sci-fi fantasy weapons, they should be doing better killer drones than, after bombing an area, land, transform into humanoid form and chase the survivors while threatening them with a hard metallic voice. "We must destroy! Death to humans... TERRORISTS! We meant terrorists!"

    1. Re:The army's budget by polar+red · · Score: 1

      clearly too much money

      indeed. check the NASA budget vs. DOD budget. I don't ever see a republican complain about DOD budget ...

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    2. Re:The army's budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      indeed. check the NASA budget vs. DOD budget. I don't ever see a republican complain about DOD budget ...

      But we need thirteen aircraft carriers, railguns and lightning bolts to protect our freedoms from Somali pirates, or something.

    3. Re:The army's budget by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As Max Hastings (UK military historian) observes, the problem with the US military is that they imagine that a sufficiently large and advanced weapon will bring a war to an end quickly. The Manhattan project reinforced this mindset, although the conventional bombing of Japan was more lethal than the atom bombing, and it may merely have provided a pretext for the Emperor to rule that the war should end. Since WW2, the approach hasn't worked. But generals and military bureaucrats are always trying to fight the last big war over again.

      --
      From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    4. Re:The army's budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite to the contrary. This is the first time, in the history of professional armies, that one is trying to prepare for the next war, vice the last. The US military is desperately trying to prepare for a war with China, and the retarded secretary of defense, instead of realizing that this is a whole lot cheaper than a war with china, is gutting the Air Force's budget and accusing them of "next war-itis". We have literally fucked this up for 2000 years, and the first time a military prepares for the next war instead of the last, we fuck it up.

    5. Re:The army's budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      US military is that they imagine that a sufficiently large and advanced weapon will bring a war to an end quickly.

      The Atomic Bomb brought WW2 in the Pacific to and end in a matter of days.
      The Cold War was won when tactical nuclear weapons were placed in Europe to negate the Warsaw Pact's significant numerical superiority in conventional forces.
      Air power, smart bombs, superior armor, the MLRS, and the use of GPS (which enhanced maneuvering of allied troops) enabled the US led Coalition to defeat Iraq in Gulf War 1 and later, in Gulf War 2. Both were quick victories. The occupation, of course, was a completely different matter.
      Peace through superior firepower works.

    6. Re:The army's budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The surrender was already under negotiation. The US presenter Japan with a proposal the knew would be rejected - get rid of the Emperor. It was an excuse used to justify a decision already made to test the weapons. The test were intended i) to scare the shit out of the Russians, ii) to test that a functional weapon could be delivered without killing the aviators and most vilely of all iii) to test the effect of a real nuclear explosion on unprotected civilians. Mengele would be proud.

    7. Re:The army's budget by khallow · · Score: 4, Informative

      The surrender was already under negotiation.

      Not by anyone who had authority to surrender. Which makes it a pretty useless observation.

    8. Re:The army's budget by Tom · · Score: 1

      But generals and military bureaucrats are always trying to fight the last big war over again.

      Almost. They are trying to fight the last big victory over again. Defeat, contrary to common perception, isn't much of a lesson unless it is crushing.

      Germany was successful in WW2 initially because after WW1 they had completely reworked their military. France was crushed because it held to the WW1 strategies, and initial deployments of US troops were slaughtered on the battlefield until the US had re-worked their training program.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    9. Re:The army's budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I propose the fourth law of robotics.

      All robots shall be equipped with the following pre-recorded messages:
      1. Danger, Will Robinson!
      2. I'll be back.
      3. Bite my shiny metal ass.

    10. Re:The army's budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're checking it over the internet, especially with wireless and/or a cellphone, you probably shouldn't be complaining too much either.

    11. Re:The army's budget by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The advanced weapons DO make short work of things like Iraqi ground forces, and reduce US casualties to tiny levels compared to those inflicted on their opponents.

      Tech overmatch saved South Korea, temporarily saved Viet Nam (and even the South Vietnamese until the US cut all their funding and left them to swing in the wind!), and ensured that US ground troops don't come under attack by enemy air forces.

      War is awkward, but tech overmatch is Very Nice to have.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    12. Re:The army's budget by khallow · · Score: 1

      the problem with the US military is that they imagine that a sufficiently large and advanced weapon will bring a war to an end quickly.

      Well, there are a number of wars where that did happen. In US history, both the US Civil War and the First World War had technologies that were going to end the war on their own (repeating rifle and machine gun for the first, the armored tank for the second).

      But I think he ignores a more fundamental issue. I think it can be described in a word, "procurement". The militaries of the world always have problems procuring the equipment and resources that they use. And it is frequent that someone tries for personal gain to get an army to use certain suppliers or strategies.

      I see procurement as the great glaring weakness of current US military strategy. There are a number of related problems. First, the supplier market is notoriously uncompetitive. There are only two shipyards which produce almost all US military ships. Lockheed is the only producer of the F-35, the next generation fighter jet. At the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, there was only one supplier of small arms ammunition despite the ease of making such ammunition (it was easy for the US government to expand to additional suppliers when the first supplier couldn't keep up with demand, but they should have been doing that from the very beginning).

      Second, is the favoring of big expensive projects, not because they are militarily effective, but because they're great vehicles for doling out political pork. A notorious example is the Sea Wolf submarine which has been funded by Congress over the protest of the Department of Defense. I believe this use of military activities as a pork vehicle has resulted in very expensive contracts for such things as food and janitor service.

      In summary, I think that procurement is handled by a very limited number of suppliers and often for reasons that run counter to military needs. This I believe to be the great weakness of the US military.

  15. The US army is taking over the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shocking!

  16. They stole my idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn it! I thought of that first!

    1. Re:They stole my idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have patented it!

  17. A product of Applied Energetics by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is from Applied Energetics. It's not yet clear if it's militarily useful. Range is going to be a problem. It has potential as "something to shoot at a potential IED that causes less damage than an IED".

    Unless it becomes a more generally useful weapon, though, it will probably suffer the fate of most overspecialized weapons.

  18. And so... by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 0

    ... Life catches up with Girl Genius.

    http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20071126

  19. Video by gijoel · · Score: 2

    or it didn't happen.

  20. "Shock" (ha ha) and definitely AWE by wisebabo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know how practical a weapon this would be in a military engagement (like with other guys shooting back at you) but in a situation where you needed to scare the bejeezes out of some people (like a riot or maybe a hostage situation) I can definitely see it being useful.

    I mean most weapons (flamethrowers excepted) are pretty hard to see (not hear). You can see the flash of muzzles and maybe the pitting of concrete from near misses but other than getting hit you wouldn't know how close they were to you.

    THIS on the other hand would be a terrifying weapon. Like a thunderbolt thrown at you, the flash would probably blind you for a few seconds and the clap of thunder make you deaf. People would just start running unless they dropped dead due to a heart attack! Think of it as god's version of a taser.

    It reminds me of that lightning weapon used in "District 9". Don't know if it's powerful enough to make people literally explode.

    1. Re:"Shock" (ha ha) and definitely AWE by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      THIS on the other hand would be a terrifying weapon.

      "He has loosed the fateful lightning,
      Of His terrible swift sword..."

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:"Shock" (ha ha) and definitely AWE by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      It reminds me of that lightning weapon used in "District 9". Don't know if it's powerful enough to make people literally explode.

      Or the staff weapons from Stargate SG-1:

      O'Neill: This [holds up a staff weapon] is a weapon of terror. It's made to intimidate the enemy. This [holds up a P-90] is a weapon of war. It's made to kill the enemy.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  21. Transhuman Space... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First time i ran into the description of such a weapon was in the GURPS based Transhuman Space RPG.

  22. Not "Electrostatic DC" by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Informative
    If it is electrostatic it is not a direct current (hint: static=not moving, current = moving).

    Lightning normally consists of two pulses, one up and one down. The latter usually contains most of the current, but as it is a pulse with a rapidly rising leading edge, the EM field is considerable. The terms "AC" and "DC" do not really apply in this case.

    The significant thing is not so much the frequency spectrum of the pulse, but the actual cross section of the ionised region through which the current is passing. If this is relatively large, the current density is low and a Faraday cage is effective. If it is small, the current density may be so high that the actual resistance of the target becomes important; the heat generated may melt a hole in the target resulting in the penetration of ionised gas into the target and current flowing down it. This explains rare cases where a lightning rod has not sufficiently reduced the potential gradient over a building, and the first strike has blown a hole in one of the conductors and then perhaps jumped into the building and started a fire. (I have seen photos of this effect but not seen them anywhere on the net.)

    The idea of a target surrounded by a "dense gold shield" is just plain silly, by the way. All gold is dense...and a thick gold shield would be impracticably expensive. Copper is fine (higher melting point and greater thermal capacity than aluminum) but reinforced concrete with the rebar internally welded together would be much cheaper, more generally effective, and should easily be able to cope with the very limited power available from any human-built weapon.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Not "Electrostatic DC" by trewornan · · Score: 1

      If it is electrostatic it is not a direct current (hint: static=not moving, current = moving).

      Isn't the point that once an electrostatic charge starts to discharge it is then moving - i.e. DC?

    2. Re:Not "Electrostatic DC" by c0lo · · Score: 2

      Also for the money spent to develop this weapon, how cheap will be the counter-measures?

      Copper is fine (higher melting point and greater thermal capacity than aluminum) but reinforced concrete with the rebar internally welded together would be much cheaper, more generally effective, and should easily be able to cope with the very limited power available from any human-built weapon.

      What's wrong with a lightning-rod? Use a set of them if needed: mount them in from of the vehicle to be protected so that the distance between the vehicle and a rod is larger than the distance between the rods.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    3. Re:Not "Electrostatic DC" by Rei · · Score: 1

      In theory, concerning ordinance, they just need to induce enough current to set off the blasting cap. That's not a very high standard that the weapon has to meet.

      --
      Rhetorical questions suck. Why ask a question if you don't want an answer?
    4. Re:Not "Electrostatic DC" by jbengt · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with a lightning-rod? . . mount them in from of the vehicle to be protected

      Grounding the lighting rod in a moving vehicle is problematic.

    5. Re:Not "Electrostatic DC" by MrAngryForNoReason · · Score: 1

      Grounding the lighting rod in a moving vehicle is problematic.

      Not really, a lot of vehicles already have a grounding system which is essentially a conductive strip that hangs down at the back of the car. When the car is stationary the strip is close enough to the ground to discharge any static build up on the car body so that you don't get a static shock when you get out of the car. Making a more robust version that is connected to a lightning rod would be fairly trivial.

      Of course it would also be pointless, the occupants of the car would be protected by the skin effect even if they were touching a conductive surface inside the car, which they probably wouldn't be.

    6. Re:Not "Electrostatic DC" by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      It is if the detonating device is shielded, like I don't know, inside the bomb?

  23. Why on Earth a klystron? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Interesting
    They are suitable for modulation (as in broadcast) but for straight microwaves a magnetron is your generator of choice. It really is so simple that when the first magnetron was taken from the UK to the US as part of WW2 technology exchange, the reaction of the American engineers was "It's just a diode and a magnet! Why didn't we think of that?" Apocryphally one engineer remarked "It's just an electronic dog whistle", to which another replied "Explain a dog whistle". However...

    Years ago a few of us playing with a 500W magnetron did manage to light a small bulb connected to a dipole a few meters away, and deflect the needle of an Avometer with a loop aerial at about 10M. But focussing is a pig, and your claims of knocking out wifi over a mile away with a poxy little 200W is nonsense. There is this thing called the inverse square law. You would be better off with a maser, but even so to do any damage you would need to keep the beam in the same place for quite some time, and with two moving vehicles this will be difficult. Vehicle electronics are rather well protected nowadays, and there are few points you could hit where the beam would transmit significant energy into the ECU. The ECU connections are protected with transient suppressors, and can normally withstand 28V for a while.

    You'd do much better with a high intensity cobalt-60 pulse source, but again getting the range without either killing yourself with radiation or having to transport the ass end of a nuclear sub around with you might prove difficult.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Why on Earth a klystron? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Not to mention automotive electronics are designed to be very tolerant to voltage spikes, if the battery connection fails while the alternator is spinning you get a huge amount of energy dumped into everything else still connected. If you've ever seen an ECU in a car you'll also notice it is inside a solid metal case. Cars are also thoroughly tested for electromagnetic immunity as well

  24. Codename by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Zeus"

    1. Re:Codename by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Going with the average IQ of the military as shown in movies, the codename is probably "Neptune" or "Poseidon".

  25. And the Science gets done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you make a neat gun.
    For the people who are still alive.

  26. Ye Gods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel sorry for the next baddie Uncle Sam gets "Thor" at.

  27. Nananan nanana nanana nana by MrVirite · · Score: 1

    We want war! WAKE UP!

  28. An early version of this by jd · · Score: 1

    ...was discussed on Slashdot many years ago. The original idea, IIRC, was that they'd shoot a UV beam to actually ionize the air between the shooter and the target - the lighting would then travel down this path as it would be the path of least resistance. I guess either the UV wasn't ionizing enough or they felt the lensing effect would be better.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  29. Yet another discusting "weapon post" ... by yvesdandoy · · Score: 0

    Makes me want to puke ... again !

  30. Good ol' Quake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're one step closer to having the Lightning Gun from Quake 1. Aw yeah. The world gets better each day. 8)

    1. Re:Good ol' Quake by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Only for some definitions of "better".

    2. Re:Good ol' Quake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      quake was fun.

      I welcome our hyper-industrial future full of team-deathmatch and short respawn timers.

  31. How much is 50 billion watts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To put the energy output in perspective, a big filament light bulb uses 100 watts. The optical amplifier output is 50 billion watts of optical power, Fischer said.

    But how many ELOCs (Equivalent Libraries of Congress) is that?

    1. Re:How much is 50 billion watts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None. One measures power, the other measures a quantity of data. That's like asking how many Kilometers there are in an Acre (linear distance vs. area) or How many Inches there are in a Pound (linear distance vs. weight).

  32. Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  33. Not enough pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shooting lightning bolts is all very cool but I need more pictures. Preferably pictures that aren't low res and highly compressed. For all I know it could be fake. Just saying.

    1. Re:Not enough pictures by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      I can assure you, those are real pixels.

  34. Godzilla! by haggus71 · · Score: 2

    I can't believe everyone missed this fact: now we finally have the Lightning guns to fight Godzilla!

    1. Re:Godzilla! by rjejr · · Score: 1

      And we're also safe from green gargantuas from the sea and brown gargantuas from the mountains.

  35. religious wars by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    DoD and Homeland Sec wet dream. Might work better in more backwards areas - Wrath of God, "wrong side" and such for govt enemies.

  36. "proud to be serving our warfighters" by Rogerborg · · Score: 0

    Urgh, I just sicked up in my mouth a bit. Proud to be chowing down on pork that could be spent on better boots and body armour rather than fantasy zap guns that will never come out of the lab.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:"proud to be serving our warfighters" by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      Or, for the matter, money that could be spent by the general civil population of the country instead, and not necessarily on military tech.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
  37. Stealing energy ? by melnaism · · Score: 1

    What keeps me from firing this type of laser to high voltage powerlines to charge up my electric car? Of course if I have such laser ?

    1. Re:Stealing energy ? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      The power lines aren't high enough voltage.

  38. See the GGP post by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    It said "actual lightning is pure electrostatic DC anyway". It is not. I think on reflection the GGP may have meant "electrostatic discharge", but in any case lightning is not a "direct current" in the usual sense of the word. DC is used to mean a circuit where conventional current flows from a higher to a lower potential (obviously the electrons actually flow from lower to higher potential but that's a whole other can of worms).

    In lightning an initial spike ionises air, and then the next spike of current travels down the ionised track. Electrons move one way, ions move in different directions depending on charge. Because the velocity and population density of both is changing very rapidly, EM fields are generated with gradients in varying directions. It is about as unlike a one-way current in a wire or an electron beam in vacuo as you can easily get.

    My complaint with the GGP was that it is an inaccurate description of what happens, contains nonsense like "surrounded by a dense gold shield", and yet gets moderated up to +5 despite it.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:See the GGP post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of semiconductors have holes moving the other way. We call a chemical cell DC even though the current in some of the circuit is carried by ions. Without getting into pointless nitpicking calling lightning DC is more than close enough.

  39. Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We have literally fucked this up for 2000 years," If Ive told you once Ive told you a million times don't exaggerate.

    You don't even have much more than 500 years of history.

  40. Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For IEDs a high pressure water jet is all you need.

    Cheap.

    Effective.

    No need for millions in research.

  41. Re:Fucktards submit + fucktards edit = new Slashdo by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

    Or it was misspelled on purpose. Grow some man-parts, unclick the "anonymous" box, and come back when you are all grown up.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
  42. Why just a weapon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can got away with choosing the location of a bolt strike,as is claimed.
    If you can find some way to store quickly large amounts of energy (Maybe melting salt).
    If you can convert the energy stored in electricity (Hea a conventional steam generator with molten salt)
    It could be a hell of a energy source.
    Of course, I'm assuming that the lases will use less power than the usable energy recovered, and I can even be right :-)

  43. Power ON! by GReaToaK_2000 · · Score: 1

    Extra Crispy!!!

    Need a Jump??

  44. I Found An Image Of The Prototype In Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://goo.gl/Ed1Wg (tesladownunder.com)

  45. WTF BFG is plasma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Idiot! The BFG is a plasma weapon. I think you're referring to the lightning gun. Though if you meant to do that in a truly innaccurate /. fashion then you succeeded... but then again so did the original article title and summary so your point is redundant.

    1. Re:WTF BFG is plasma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot! The BFG is a plasma weapon. I think you're referring to the lightning gun. Though if you meant to do that in a truly innaccurate /. fashion then you succeeded... but then again so did the original article title and summary so your point is redundant.

      I think you will find that lightning IS plasma.

  46. Funny Mental Image by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

    Ok this gets me thinking along the lines of Thor going after the minority group du'jour and after seeing the article's image, I was really reminded of phasers from Star Trek.... I'm sure there could have been some TNG episode in there...

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  47. alien weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just wait until the "alien invasion" begins and watch them use this exact same weapon

  48. what's the worst that could happen? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    i mean, it's not like they are playing with fire.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  49. The Matrix is real? by dontfearthereaper · · Score: 2

    You weren't supposed to bring stuff from the real world IN to the Matrix, Neo.....

  50. Only a pic? by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    I was hoping I would see something like this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4UcGgqam7Y

  51. ordinance vs ordnance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it not be the latter? Dear golly, if the military did actually explode its ordinance, well, dandy it'd be.

  52. you can play along at home by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    WRONG .
    LOC is a viable unit in all dimensions. It just takes a bit of imagination to come up with the proper derivation in some cases.

    data - the amount of data corresponding to all the volumes of the LOC
    mass - how much do all the books in the LOC weigh?
    length - how long is the LOC?
    area - how much carpet is there in the LOC?
    volume - how much space does the LOC occupy?
    power - how much does the LOC owe PEPCO every month?
    temperature - what's the AC thermostat set at in the LOC main reading room?
    frequency - how many times has the LOC existed in human history?
    luminosity - how much light does the LOC give off when burned?
    time - how long is the waiting list for Fifty Shades of Gray at the LOC?

    I think that covers some common units, and all the basic ones. Deriving the rest is trivial, and left as a exercise for some bored nerd on teh intarwebs.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  53. LARP in action? by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

    Perhaps these guys provided some expert advice to the Army?

  54. They stole this idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The lightning is guided in a laser-induced plasma channel"

    They stole this idea from the Unreal Tournament game developers. ;-) Though I think the Unreal lightning gun sent a stream of protons, it's close enough.

  55. Am I the only one by belgianguy · · Score: 1

    who thought about Outpost 2 and its Thor's Hammer tank? Man those dual turreted Tiger chassis Thor's Hammer could dish it out.

  56. Meanwhile, the Japanese Navy... by Markvs · · Score: 1

    Has begun work on something called a 'Wave Motion Gun". Details are sketchy at this time, but the plans seem to involve the recycling of a sunken World War Two battleship...

    --
    46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
  57. Not that new an idea by tlambert · · Score: 1

    The Air Force had a similar weapon in 1978, albeit using what was effectively ball lightning in the plasma channel rather than full arc charges like the Army weapon -- I don't think the arc charges terrifically useful any more than people die in the Farraday cage at Arc Attack concerts at Maker Faires (hint: they don't).

    The air force work was based on work by Pyotr Kapitsa, the Russian Nobel winning physicist. The idea was to create a plasma channel with a laser, drop a ball of lighning into it, and let the closing channel push it into the target. I'm pretty sure the project was scrapped for the same reason the army project isn't going to go anywhere (unless they deploy it against combat troops, rather than vehicles.

    HERF guns would probably be more fruitful, if the intent wasn't fried humans; at least HERF guns actually work against avionics/vehicle electronics.

  58. Except it doesn't work by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    Modern car tires are sufficiently conductive that static buildup is rarely a problem except when conditions are so dry that ground resistance is very high - which would stop the conductive strip from working. (And yes, I have done work in this area, while working in R&D for a company that made antistatic and lightning protection products.)

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  59. this is so fucking stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest the demo was performed within 6 feet of the car not so that you would have a good view of the effect.
    It's 6 ft because that's as far as the effect can be demonstrated.
    If your "weapon" is only effective if your target need to get so close that you can see his nose hair with your naked eyes, you might want to shoot the bastard who wasted all your development funds on the said "weapon".

  60. Operator title: Shimbo, Shrugger of Thunders by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    ... may Roger Zelazny forgive me. :-)

  61. Thor's match by dvazquez · · Score: 1

    Thor, meet your match!

  62. Light version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Light version just creates dreary raincloud above enemy.

  63. This must be something other than actual lightning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While this may be called "lightning" - it has to be some other form of energy, that mearly appears to be lightning to kill a car or other vehicle.

    Cars can withstand most lightning strikes because they are not grounded to the Earth.
    The bolt may strike the metal shell of the car and run around it before jumping to the ground, but it would rarely ever cause physical damage to the car itself.

    However, you may be able to create a charged particle beam of some kind that is capable of frying the electronics in a car or vehicle, that appears to be lightning to the casual observer. The military has long lusted for an EMP pulse weapon which could be directed to hit a single target, without harming surounding potential targets. Think about being able to fry an inbound missle, or plane at a distance, and simple watch it tumble out of control.

  64. Re:This must be something other than actual lightn by lpq · · Score: 1

    Why must it be something other than lightening?
    From the original article it sounds exactly like lightening -- and it doesn't show the car being destroyed by it -- but being hit by it.

    They guide the lightening with a laser which pre-heats and pre-ionizes the path of least resistance to the target. Thus the electronic bolt naturally follows the path of the laser. The laser only has to be powerful enough to create a lower resistance path through the atmosphere for the electrical charge to follow.

    As for your assertions about cars having metal shells? I guess you haven't bought a new car lately? They are generally plastic. There is likely to be a metal cage under the plastic, but the main damage here, will likely be to the cars electronics. Since nearly all new cars have EFI these days, the car will instantly die with no pump to drive the EFI...

     

  65. Meh. by SheridanR · · Score: 1

    The lightning gun may technically rank higher in your arsenal than the rocket launcher, but anyone who's played Quake would know that rocket launchers are ultimately much more powerful than lightning guns.

  66. Lightning - Not DC by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    A "lightning bolt" is a resonant effect with a wide spectrum. Most of the energy is around the 200-500kHz range. So yes, skin effect does come into it. It's more than just "one up and one down" - bear in mind that high speed photography is picking up the ionisation path, not the electrical impulses.

  67. PEACEFUL USE OF LIGHTNING LASER BEAM WEAPON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lightning laser magnetically-pinched-nuclear-fusion power-generator is described in the Nasa Create The Future Design Engineering Contest entry May 17, 2012 where a lightning laser is used to capture real lightning from the sky which is then used to ignite nuclear fusion reactions! Atrificial lightning generated by a tesla coil is sent along ionized channels of air which were ionized by an ultraviolet or other lasers into the clouds and ionosphere to discharge available lightning which then travels down the lightning laser ionized path beam to a magnetically confined fusion generator. The captured real lightning is transformed to higher amperages which are used to magnetically pinch deuterium-tritium creating supersonic shock waves that ignite the fuel while it is confined in a magnetic bottle. Heat generated is used to produce steam for a steam turbine which rotates an electric generator to power the grid.
    Coinmcidentally, the contest entry was proposed on the day before the Army released its news.