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?"

49 of 214 comments (clear)

  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 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?
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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...
    5. 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?
    6. 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.
  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 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.

  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 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,
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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 ?
    9. 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?
  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
  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!

  6. 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.

  7. 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 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!
    2. 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.
    3. 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"

    4. 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. 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 VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    6. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. Video by gijoel · · Score: 2

    or it didn't happen.

  11. "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.

  12. 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 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.
  13. 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."
  14. 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."
  15. Godzilla! by haggus71 · · Score: 2

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

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. The Matrix is real? by dontfearthereaper · · Score: 2

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

  19. Re:Faraday Effect Anyone? by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    Cheap. Tinfoil hat cheap.