New Real Life Laser-Rifle Cuts Through Metal Like a Blowtorch

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Real Life Laser-Rifle Cuts Through Metal Like a Blowtorch

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday September 29, 2013 @04:47AM from the like-a-hot-knife-through-butter dept.

dryriver writes "We've seen real laser guns before pulling off tricks like starting small fires, or popping black balloons. That's cool, sure, but it's got nothing—on this handheld laser rifle. Developed by TWI this laser-cutter was initially designed for use by robots, but a few recent tweaks including a pistol-grip and a trigger made it into a human-sized rifle. It is designed specifically with nuclear decommission in mind, specifically chopping up huge pieces of metal infrastructure into bite-sized bits that are easily disposed of. And while it's definitely suited for that, it has some short-comings compared typical rifles. That range is pretty low, for instance, and it's not exactly mobile."

104 of 143 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

of course it isn't mobile by peragrin · 2013-09-29 04:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

WE don't have high energy portable power sources.
We really need to figure out an iron many style reactor to power the next generation of cool toys that we can dream but not really use.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
1. Re:of course it isn't mobile by TeknoHog · 2013-09-29 05:05 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  WE don't have high energy portable power sources.
  We really need to figure out an iron many style reactor to power the next generation of cool toys that we can dream but not really use.
  Also, it should be able to operate in frickin' saltwater. In fact, the frickin' buoyancy might even help with the frickin' portability.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
2. Re: of course it isn't mobile by pollarda · 2013-09-29 05:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This isn't very impressive. If it isn't mobile, then it is like any other cutting solution. Of course, if you want to see something really impressive for cutting metals, Petrogen is the way to go. It is an oxy-gasoline cutting torch and can cut up to 14 inches of steel at once. Be sure to check out their videos. Super impressive.
3. Re:of course it isn't mobile by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2013-09-29 05:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Jarvis and the reactor were the two most under-rated bits of tech Tony put together.
  The reactor would have ended war.
  But Jarvis... a real AI? That's far beyond anything else we've ever built.
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
4. Re:of course it isn't mobile by Subm · 2013-09-29 05:18 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  "You're going to need a bigger shark."
5. Re: of course it isn't mobile by KiloByte · 2013-09-29 05:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This isn't very impressive.
  What I find more impressive is that they somehow made a laser rifle. I wonder what does it do: shoot a helical beam like those in some games?
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
6. Re: of course it isn't mobile by Ferzerp · 2013-09-29 05:45 · Score: 2
  
  It emits a circularly polarized beam of light of course!
7. Re: of course it isn't mobile by gl4ss · 2013-09-29 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  well there has to be a reason why this is marketed just for nuke waste.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
8. Re: of course it isn't mobile by pollarda · 2013-09-29 05:53 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps it is for use by Duke Nukem....
9. Re: of course it isn't mobile by blincoln · 2013-09-29 06:24 · Score: 2
  
  What would you suggest calling it instead of a "laser rifle"? A "laser musket"? "Smoothbore laser long-gun"?
  
  --
  "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
10. Re:of course it isn't mobile by Arancaytar · 2013-09-29 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  I see where you're going with this.
11. Re: of course it isn't mobile by EdZ · 2013-09-29 06:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  With the scattering from the air blast, I propose "laser boomstick".
12. Re: of course it isn't mobile by fustakrakich · 2013-09-29 07:14 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I didn't see any light...
  I would advise not to look at it with the other eye then.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
13. Re:of course it isn't mobile by godrik · 2013-09-29 08:46 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Actually, how much power does it need to operate? There must be some energy cost per time unit. But I could not figure it out.
14. Re:of course it isn't mobile by fa2k · 2013-09-29 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe now that there's a demonstrable military use we will finally see some breakthroughs in the energy storage business. [don't really think it's that bad, but it had to be said]
15. Re: of course it isn't mobile by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-09-29 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  It also has some kind of blower to blow the melting stuff out of the way.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
16. Re:of course it isn't mobile by rubycodez · 2013-09-29 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  what do you call "high energy"? we have 3.5 kW generators that weigh less than 50 lbs. Imagine charging cycle of twenty seconds followed by firing for one second....
17. Re: of course it isn't mobile by kermidge · 2013-09-29 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  Petrogen, impressive indeed. If I heard it correctly, cuts 10" for 10hrs. on two gallons of fuel. Multi-fuel, at that.
18. Re: of course it isn't mobile by compro01 · 2013-09-29 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  Meltagun.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
19. Re: of course it isn't mobile by johnw · 2013-09-29 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  What would you suggest calling it instead of a "laser rifle"?
  Light sabre?
  Seems suitable for getting through the blast doors.
20. Re:of course it isn't mobile by Kelbear · 2013-09-30 02:21 · Score: 2
  
  I wonder how laser weapons would change the nature of smallarms combat. I've heard that most of the shots are fired to suppress the enemy so that you can maneuver. With a silent and invisible laser beam, the missed shots might not put the same fear of death into the enemy as the crack and zip of a bullet that almost took your life. If a squad can't intimidate the enemy into not shooting and getting back down into cover, wouldn't they just end up pinned down?
  I guess people have already talked death about all the limitations a laser rifle would have... so what is the long term vision for how a laser weapon would provide a benefit in small arms combat? Could it fire more accurately at longer ranges and still carry enough killing power? Or perhaps the lack of recoil would help it kill enemies more effectively while other bullet-based weapons provide covering fire?
21. Re: of course it isn't mobile by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-30 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  What would you suggest calling it instead of a "laser rifle"? A "laser musket"? "Smoothbore laser long-gun"?
  Well, the manufacturer refers to it as a "Laser cutter" which is what it is, so I'd suggest just calling it that.
  It's not a "gun" because it doesn't fire a projectile (it emits a beam).
  It's not a firearm because it's not based on explosives.
  It's not a rifle because it's not, well, rifled.
  Just because something has a grip and a barrel doesn't make it a "gun", a "rifle", etc.
22. Re:of course it isn't mobile by sumdumass · 2013-09-30 03:37 · Score: 2
  
  Lasers have traditionally been left out of battle as an arm because the way they melt to kill instead of killing. Imagine an enemy who first goes blind then has his skin melt off while his blood starts boiling and if he is lucky, finally death. Now with something like this, that migt happen quicker than it would take for a bullet to kill but that might have been spread over 5, 10 minutes or more
  But i think if it would be used that it still wouldn't be a killing device as much as a tool to destroy whatever the cover the enemy was hiding behind. Imagine an ambush, you are pinned down with the enemy well protected and you can cut that protection away making them retreat or being exposed. If they die in the process, well war is hell i guess.
  The damn spellcheck on this phone doesn't work in the sladhdot box
23. Re:of course it isn't mobile by Optali · 2013-09-30 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Besides the portable energy source another important thing that needs to be figured out is how to make a sword of it. A rifle is not cool at all. We need swords.
  And if possible before Disney churns out any Star Wars Pre-Post-Interquel so that we have something to retaliate with.
  
  --
  -- 29A the number of the Beast
handheld rifle by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 04:59 · Score: 2, Informative

...but truck-sized power supply. Just in case the Space Patrol thinks this is Star Trek. Plus, the atmosphere is a great shield; a 1$ bullet has more lethal range...
1. Re:handheld rifle by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-09-29 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Just in case the Space Patrol thinks this is Star Trek.
  Given the visual style similarities, I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Design wise, it's like it's 1960s all over again! ;-)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
2. Re:handheld rifle by binarylarry · 2013-09-29 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yep, this article should have been titled "New Real Life Laser-Cutter Cuts Through Metal Like a Laser-Cutter"
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Pulse Rifle by Dexter+Herbivore · 2013-09-29 05:02 · Score: 4, Funny

"Phased-plasma pulse rifle in 40-watt range".
If only...
1. Re:Pulse Rifle by pr100 · 2013-09-29 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, just what you see pal.
2. Re:Pulse Rifle by torsmo · 2013-09-29 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  At the end of that cool video, just for an instant, I thought it listed Paris Hilton as the person to contact for inquiries. Turned out, it was a Paul Hilton. Would've been fun, wouldn't it?
3. Re:Pulse Rifle by kimgkimg · 2013-09-30 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Hey just what you see on the shelf buddy.
Safety at Work by CaptainOfSpray · 2013-09-29 05:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

"designed specifically with nuclear decommission in mind, specifically chopping up huge pieces of metal infrastructure into bite-sized bits", which it vaporizes and then throws all over the operator (photo in TFA).

Note to self: do not apply for that kind of work, no matter what the rate.

--
"Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
1. Re:Safety at Work by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-09-29 05:19 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I'm a trifle surprised that they'd be using some fancy laser apparatus in this situation:
  
  There are aspects of nuclear decommissioning (if memory serves, some lucky sucker got to deal with the 'eh, we don't know what this is, so we'll just weld it into barrels and leave it for the future' supply stored at Hanford, much of which was virulently radioactive, some, which one is always a surprise, also chemically unpleasant and/or explosive) where you can't get away with the heat, open flames, and vaporized-bits-getting everywhere that you see with lasers, various cutting torches, or high powered saws. For that sort of thing, you have somewhat exotic toys like liquid nitrogen cutting jets. If you are allowed to expose the sample to ridiculous temperatures and open flames, though, why expensive lasers rather than boring (and mature and relatively cheap) cutting torches or thermic lances?
2. Re:Safety at Work by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  What is wrong with cutting stuff the way people handle cutting easily work-hardened materials? That generally means submersing it in water and using very normal, cheap, boring tools like angle grinders and sawsalls.
  Not everything demands six digit priced tools and years of research to get done.
3. Re:Safety at Work by phantomfive · 2013-09-29 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about you, but my first thought was, dang, that would be useful in Payday 2. It takes forever to drill into a vault.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
4. Re:Safety at Work by cascadingstylesheet · 2013-09-29 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  If you are allowed to expose the sample to ridiculous temperatures and open flames, though, why expensive lasers rather than boring (and mature and relatively cheap) cutting torches or thermic lances?
  Because they're freakin' laser beams! It's awesome!
5. Re:Safety at Work by girlintraining · 2013-09-29 06:13 · Score: 2
  
  If you are allowed to expose the sample to ridiculous temperatures and open flames, though, why expensive lasers rather than boring (and mature and relatively cheap) cutting torches or thermic lances?
  Possibly because focused light energy can't become radioactive with prolonged contact with radioactive substances, whereas everything else you mentioned... does. Everything you use to handle nuclear waste materials with, itself eventually becomes nuclear waste material. I'm sure slashdot of all places will recognize a recursion problem when it sees one. Even putting a few feet between the torch and the material extends its service life before it has to be thrown in with the other waste... root square law and all that.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
6. Re:Safety at Work by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 06:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Neither does a flame... Why are your posts always so wrong? Eagerly wrong too.
7. Re:Safety at Work by flimflammer · 2013-09-29 07:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The robotic version was made for nuclear decommission. There is no operator in the vicinity in that situation. The video here is just demonstrating the same laser beam technology with a mounted pistol grip for manual use.
8. Re:Safety at Work by petermgreen · 2013-09-29 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  I guess the question is in terms of "thowing whatever it is that is being cut up arround" is this better or worse than more traditional soloutions like cutting discs, thermal lances, plasma cutters and so-on.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
9. Re:Safety at Work by WheezyJoe · 2013-09-29 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  If you are allowed to expose the sample to ridiculous temperatures and open flames, though, why expensive lasers rather than boring (and mature and relatively cheap) cutting torches or thermic lances?
  Because they're freakin' laser beams! It's awesome!
  THIS.
  
  and maybe because there's something problematic about delivering and burning an oxidant and fuel in the intended environment.
  but mostly, it's just awesome. freakin' laser beams, hand-held, and with a squeeze trigger. I'd stand in line to try that sucker out.
  
  --
  Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
10. Re:Safety at Work by inasity_rules · 2013-09-30 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, she is wrong, but your post adds little to the discussion. I suppose the flame would have to be closer, but then a cutting torch is cheaper. Perhaps it has to do with the distance between the operator and the radioactive stuff.
  
  --
  I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
I don't need metal-cutting by overshoot · 2013-09-29 05:06 · Score: 2

I do need (semi) portability, as long as it's good for line-of-sight use on pigeons.

--
Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
more torch then rifle by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 05:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

I find it hard to call this a "laser rifle." Aside fromt he fact that rifles are rifles because of the rifling in the barrel (grooves which cause the bullet to spin), Rifles have a medium to long range. This appears to have only a slightly greater effective range then my Oxy-Fuel torch (which is to say, less then a foot).
1. Re:more torch then rifle by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2013-09-29 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, my friends and I have wondered what the term for rifle-sized lasers will be, since they don't actually have any rifling.
  Probably rifle, the same way we still use a 3.5" disk for the save icon and the rotary handset icon for "make a call".
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
2. Re:more torch then rifle by wjh31 · 2013-09-29 05:48 · Score: 2
  
  If the light was circularly polarized, would that cover rifling for you?
3. Re:more torch then rifle by hort_wort · 2013-09-29 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  I find it hard to call this a "laser rifle." Aside fromt he fact that rifles are rifles because of the rifling in the barrel (grooves which cause the bullet to spin), Rifles have a medium to long range. This appears to have only a slightly greater effective range then my Oxy-Fuel torch (which is to say, less then a foot).
  It looks like it'd be simple to move the lens and refocus the beam further away. Then the blower to get the debris out of the way wouldn't work though. And it'd probably also be really hard to keep the thing on target. I can't even hold a little laser pointer without looking like a spaz.
4. Re:more torch then rifle by leuk_he · 2013-09-29 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't cause reflection on a real parralel laser (without some focus point) cause bit problem...
  Some reflection.... oops there goo all the camera's on the site...
  Some reflection ... I hope you were not to attached to that arm of yours...
5. Re:more torch then rifle by Flere+Imsaho · 2013-09-29 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  They'd be pretty stupid to have a columnated beam that went cuts anywhere along it's length, with only attenuation being the limiting factor. I suspect it's deliberately designed with a short focal length so that it's easy to keep objects at the focus of the beam, and to make it more efficient / less dangerous.
  Gotta love how pedantic comments like yours get modded up on /.
  
  --
  It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
6. Re:more torch then rifle by Chrontius · 2013-09-29 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  I suggest "carbine" - most rifles tend to be rather longer than this system's beam director.
7. Re:more torch then rifle by Chrontius · 2013-09-29 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  That's why he's wearing the entry suit and the laser lenses.
8. Re:more torch then rifle by jon3k · 2013-09-29 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  If it cuts metal in seconds at one foot, I wonder what it does at 100 feet to a person? The real problem is the power supply, of course.
9. Re:more torch then rifle by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of systems use a focusing beam shape in part so that the highest intensity part of the beam is not limited by what the optics can do. Even high quality optics will easily get damaged by a laser beam that is a little too small or focused (or in real life scenarios, slightly uneven with a hot spot), so you use a large beam until you actually want it to cut something. Even then, depending on the optics you use, there is a limit to how far it will stay parallel-ish (if you had a ~1 mm beam, you would start having trouble keeping a ~1 micron Nd:YAG beam parallel for more than a meter).
10. Re:more torch then rifle by intermodal · 2013-09-30 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking the same thing. I can't really find any reason to rifle the barrel of a laser device.
  
  --
  In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
11. Re:more torch then rifle by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2013-09-30 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Ooh, we're on to something. Cohesive Beam Carbine -- how about CHarbine? Carbeam?
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Finally! by Arkiel · 2013-09-29 05:19 · Score: 2

A solution to deal with all those Sectoids infesting rural plots in middle America!
And what is the advantage over a plasma cutter? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2013-09-29 05:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

The only one I can see is that it works from a couple inches away, and doesn't need an electrical ground return connection to the workpiece.
Other than that, a plasma cutter is cheaper, less hazardous, and can cut thicker materials.

--
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
1. Re:And what is the advantage over a plasma cutter? by ColdWetDog · 2013-09-29 08:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Sharks don't use plasma cutters.
  Just say'in.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:And what is the advantage over a plasma cutter? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  The "not needing an electrical ground return" thing is huge. Transients may turn on stuff that you really don't want to be turned on.
Cool! by fustakrakich · 2013-09-29 05:48 · Score: 2

When can I print one?

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"laser gun ... for use by robots" by Arancaytar · 2013-09-29 06:21 · Score: 1

I for one wel--- BZZZZZAP
"End war"? by sjbe · 2013-09-29 06:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

The reactor would have ended war.
Nonsense. People simply aren't that evolved. If we aren't fighting about energy we'll fight about something even more absurd like skin color or which imaginary invisible man in the sky we should all believe in.
1. Re:"End war"? by fustakrakich · 2013-09-29 07:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Wanna start a real fight? Tell her that dress makes her butt look big. That will surely start WWIII.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
2. Re:"End war"? by __aasqbs9791 · 2013-09-29 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. Like the rare materials needed to build these reactors.
3. Re:"End war"? by Culture20 · 2013-09-29 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Sue Richards is the Invisible Woman, not Man. Although her brother Johnny did have her powers for a while as a herald of Galactus.
4. Re:"End war"? by newcastlejon · 2013-09-29 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to think you have that backwards: fighting over silly things like skin colour and sky fairies is just a cover for fighting over even sillier things like land, fresh water and oil.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
5. Re:"End war"? by cavreader · 2013-09-29 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Humans have been fighting with each other since there were enough people to chose sides. Beating each other the head with clubs to win the bigger cave and prettier women. Today the fights are pretty much the same except for much better weapons.
6. Re:"End war"? by Belial6 · 2013-09-29 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  I've found exactly the opposite. Tell her that it isn't the dress that is making her butt look big. That will start a fight. Telling a woman that her dress is ugly is like telling her that her dress is stuck in the back of her nylons. If you are not a jerk about it, she will appreciate it.
7. Re:"End war"? by LunaticTippy · 2013-09-29 12:01 · Score: 2
  
  Humans have been faced with life threatening scarcity for all of history up to present day. I don't think anyone knows what will happen when literally everyone can trivially have plenty of food, clean water, and energy very cheaply. If and when it happens, there is no doubt that it will change many things.
  
  --
  Man, you really need that seminar!
8. Re:"End war"? by TubeSteak · 2013-09-29 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to think you have that backwards: fighting over silly things like skin colour and sky fairies is just a cover for fighting over even sillier things like land, fresh water and oil.
  If energy is cheap and plentiful, things like clean water and fuel are a lot easier to make.
  Arable land is also less of a problem when cheap energy can be used to make fertilizer.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
9. Re:"End war"? by philip.paradis · 2013-09-29 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  As a very happily married man with a wife whose posterior is quite round, I'm continually confused by the prevalence of jokes about big butts which assign a negative value to that trait. Apparently, many women think most men want to date twigs.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
10. Re:"End war"? by Kilo+Kilo · 2013-09-29 23:34 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I think you meant to say "I like big butts and I cannot lie."
11. Re:"End war"? by sjbe · 2013-09-30 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  If energy is cheap and plentiful, things like clean water and fuel are a lot easier to make.
  Depends on how clean the energy source is.
  
  Arable land is also less of a problem when cheap energy can be used to make fertilizer.
  Arable land is less of a problem though there is a finite amount of it and not all of it can be used no matter how much energy you have. Access to fresh water remains a problem which is somewhat alleviated by energy availability. Excess use of fertilizers are a problem all their own. Petroleum based fertilizers (which most are) are a serious pollutant and no amount of cheap energy will make them less of one. Like fossil fuels used to power equipment they have a big upside but at a serious environmental cost.
  In any case the point is that we fight over MUCH sillier things than the very real concerns of scarce energy resource.
12. Re:"End war"? by Belial6 · 2013-09-30 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Big and round are orthogonal.
13. Re:"End war"? by philip.paradis · 2013-09-30 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  I happen to like the combination of both, which I assure you exists. Maybe you don't get out often enough.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
14. Re:"End war"? by philip.paradis · 2013-09-30 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  Where are you getting all this nonsense? There are plenty of women walking around with generous posteriors that are also quite round, and a good cross section of those ladies are also pretty toned. Where are you getting the idea that such women can't be independently minded professionals who look damn good in a business suit? Man, you guys really do need to get out more. Maybe you're only looking at college girls or something.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
15. Re:"End war"? by Belial6 · 2013-09-30 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  It seems you don't know what orthogonal means.
16. Re:"End war"? by philip.paradis · 2013-09-30 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  orthogonal - 1. of or involving right angles; at right angles. 2. (of variates) statistically independent.
  There aren't many right angles in the posteriors I admire, and their size and roundness are anything but independent.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
17. Re:"End war"? by Belial6 · 2013-09-30 16:11 · Score: 1
  
  Untrue. There are plenty of big butts can be round or flat, as can small ones. Perhaps YOU should get out more. ;)
18. Re:"End war"? by philip.paradis · 2013-09-30 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'll freely admit to the possibility that my dominant visual processing scheme includes automation rejection of unsuitable posteriors :)
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
19. Re:"End war"? by LunaticTippy · 2013-10-01 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Reality is quite different from what you propose. Human populations become markedly less fertile when they become more wealthy. You can chart fertility rate vs inverse wealth and find very few outliers.
  
  The poorest countries have the highest fertility rates. You really should think about things before you post.
  
  --
  Man, you really need that seminar!
20. Re:"End war"? by oreiasecaman · 2013-10-01 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think anyone knows what will happen when literally everyone can trivially have plenty of food, clean water, and energy very cheaply.
  
  Last I knew roughly 2/3 of the world's population doesn't have trivial access to those resources. Your definition of "literally everyone" is very different from mine indeed.
  
  --
  This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
21. Re:"End war"? by LunaticTippy · 2013-10-01 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  You misunderstood my comment. Our definitions of "literally everyone" are safely in agreement.
  
  I said that life threatening scarcity is an issue up to the present day.
  I said if and when it happens [meaning the end of scarcity] there is no doubt that it will change [future tense] many things.
  
  --
  Man, you really need that seminar!
22. Re:"End war"? by oreiasecaman · 2013-10-02 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, after re-reading you comment more carefully it seems I really did misunderstood it... sorry!
  
  --
  This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
Yes, but can it cut a tomato? by davidwr · 2013-09-29 06:29 · Score: 1

Introducing the new Ginsu 3000W, it can slice a watermelon AND cut a tomato with grace and ease!*
*not dishwasher safe

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Fascinating... by Antony+T+Curtis · 2013-09-29 06:33 · Score: 1

Looks like it uses a gas stream as a laser waveguide... Perhaps a noble gas, like Argon. That would account why there appears to be a force upon the melted debris.

--
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
1. Re:Fascinating... by Kiraxa · 2013-09-29 06:54 · Score: 2
  
  Looks like it uses a gas stream as a laser waveguide... Perhaps a noble gas, like Argon. That would account why there appears to be a force upon the melted debris.
  if you listen to the narrator he says exactly what the "gas stream" is. Air. Its just blowing air out to move the slag out of the way.
  
  --
  http://phelannguyen.blogspot.com/
2. Re:Fascinating... by Antony+T+Curtis · 2013-09-29 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh... While I am doing programming, I watch videos on mute because it will disrupt the music.
  
  --
  No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
Re:So what happens if the metal is polished? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-29 07:02 · Score: 1

It takes you a fraction of a second longer to cut through it then. Mirror like finishes help if something was marginal, but even high quality mirrors meant for high power laser development will nearly instantly darken and become non-reflective if you focus the laser enough on them.
Blowtorch? by The_Dougster · 2013-09-29 07:20 · Score: 1

A blowtorch can't cut metal. Maybe they mean cutting torches?

--
Clickety Click ...
Wired or not by skiminki · 2013-09-29 07:52 · Score: 1

I want one!!!
That's an interesting definition of "rifle". by mpoulton · 2013-09-29 07:57 · Score: 4, Informative

Apparently I already have a plasma rifle in my garage! It shoots plasma and cuts metal with it - and just like this laser rifle, it requires compressed air and a remote power supply connected by an umbilical. I also have a MOLTEN METAL WELDING RIFLE! Similarly, it requires a power supply and umbilical assembly. Strangely, none of my actual rifles need cables or power supplies attached to them in order to operate.

--
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
since nobody else has said it by iveygman · 2013-09-29 08:28 · Score: 1

Pew pew pew!
uhh by atheist666 · 2013-09-29 08:53 · Score: 1

it's slower than a reciprocating saw...
Hand aimed by giorgist · 2013-09-29 09:50 · Score: 2

Hand aimed would be more accurate. The harness is bit of a giveaway. I wonder what that piping attaches to. Nice toy though
Why not use an atomic hydrogen torch? by ka9dgx · 2013-09-29 12:52 · Score: 1

Atomic hydrogen torches have been around since the 1940s... here's a GE training film about them. They produce insane amounts of heat and a reducing atmosphere, perfect for cutting almost anything.
Fukushima by sonamchauhan · 2013-09-29 13:48 · Score: 1

Send in Giant Robot armed with this to neutralize the place
Seriously, about time the stuff there was made sub critical. We can't keep cooling it forever.
Crablogger! by Traf-O-Data-Hater · 2013-09-29 15:04 · Score: 1

Reality catches up to science fiction... the Thunderbirds episode 'PATH OF DESTRUCTION' had International Rescue using handheld laser cutters to cut into the cabin of the mighty Crablogger. That was back in 1965.
Why do the sparks go in one direction? by wonkey_monkey · 2013-09-29 19:47 · Score: 1

This may be a naive question, but why do the sparks blow off away from the gun? Is there also a stream of air from the gun specifically to do this? Or is it just how the physics works when the laser hits the metal?

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Why not chem laser, each shot chems in cartridge? by MonsterMasher · 2013-09-30 02:34 · Score: 1

I've always wondered why a chem laser system isn't used. Each cartridge would contain the chems.. sure, it would need expensive amo, but it's a start.
But as far as for warfare, I think we should go back to single load non-rifled muskets, knives, and wind power on ocean only for war ships. Make war like it should be - face to face and increatable hardships before you even enter battle. Demand absolute best medical care free of charge for the rest of their lives to anyone injured. On societies tab. I'm talking daily massages if it helps - kind of support and coverage.
Then, make only those who have a personal stake in the specific issue. And conscript women.. if it's important enough to kill off young men but not young women? Why, today, do you feel they need, want, or require special care.. send your daughters off to die when you send your sons.
That will fix it!
Gun replacement. by leuk_he · 2013-09-30 03:33 · Score: 1

You cannot see bullets.
The sound of the laser hitting something (something getting hot very fast will not disintegrate silently) might give the same effect.
Adding a little bit of smoke would give a very big light effect, with the disatvantage of giving your position away.
But as said before, the main problem now is getting enough concentrated enery in a small and safe package.
More gun worship by musth · 2013-09-30 09:48 · Score: 1

Guns are so fucking cool, right? Let's keep salivating over them in all their forms.
Technology assholes.
Laser rifle problem by KVM · 2013-09-30 23:21 · Score: 1

There is several problem that I could see from this laser cutter repurposed as a weapon 1. The laser output seems to be collimated pretty badly. However, it seems to be intentional because the source from TFA youtube : http://www.twi.co.uk/news-events/case-studies/the-laser-alternative-to-nuclear-decommissioning-479/ designed the laser head to do single sided laser cutting, which means limiting its power over range 2, Is it even possible to fit a cutting laser tube at that head? There is a possibility that the beam generator is located somewhere else and the beam itself are transferred using fiber optic cable However, there is one glaring mistake for this to become a weapon, which is: 3. Why they hang their laser head?! Seeing the person holding the laser cutting head like a rifle is cool enough, until you see that there is a cable attached to it to help hang it...... They should try to hold the head freely without any support
Re: should be able to operate in frickin' saltwate by peacefool · 2013-10-01 04:02 · Score: 1

How about shark-user-friendliness?