[PCWorld]

Post your comments for This DIY Tesla Gun Must Be The Deadliest Weapon Ever here

[oldschoolh4ck3r]

I see a future military contract...

[KLanD]

Mother..f.. that's almost the same as my hypothetical design I made a couple years ago..

Well, kudos, at least he actually built it. I just put a lot of [censored] down on paper.

Now, lets talk about adding a polarized laser to that bad boy. It'll help concentrate the electric arks (more or less) into an aim-able beam.

Phaser anyone?

[deepsand]

Quote

the Tesla gun will fire over 20k volts of lightning upon pressing the trigger. As you can see above, this looks amazing but could of course kill someone

If you are going to write about Science, first learn the Science involved.

This device "fires" nothing, but simply creates a high frequency EM field, which causes temporary ionization of local molecules in the air.

And, high voltage doesn't kill; high current does.

The device is a simple step-up transformer, the power output of which cannot exceed that input from the battery. The higher the output voltage, the lower the current that it can source.

And, being high frequency, any resulting current flow will be in the outer layer of the object conducting such current, not through its inner body.

Nice toy; but, of no practical use as a weapon.

[Staerke1214]

Then do us a favor and stick your face in front of it and see how well it functions. For science.

[deepsand]

Staerke1214, on 12 May 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

Then do us a favor and stick your face in front of it and see how well it functions. For science.

Well, that was certainly well thought out.

FYI, I was working up close and personal with Tesla coils as early as 50 years ago. What do you know of the subject?

[Evildave]

Well, it could be 'deadly' if someone doesn't install those bleeder resisters on the capacitor bank, and managed to touch that himself while doing maintenance.

Just the same way many people shoot themselves while cleaning firearms.

Or maybe if there was a gas leak, and you switched it on.


I like the laser microscope thing from his site. That's so much cooler. Just shine a laser through a drop of dirty water, and it projects the itty bitty bugs on the wall. Having the cat head watching the bugs, at the bottom of his video was an extra nice touch.

[Evildave]

My mistake: It wasn't his. It was on a link from his site about the switching circuitry.

http://www.teravolt....ser-microscope/

[KLanD]

Evildave, on 12 May 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

My mistake: It wasn't his. It was on a link from his site about the switching circuitry.

http://www.teravolt....ser-microscope/

Now that is really cool. I have a few focusing lasers.. I should give this a shot.

This post has been edited by KLanD: 13 May 2012 - 03:50 AM

[mjd420nova]

The military has looked long and hard at the development of "phasers" but not had much success. The original plan was to use a projected and focused particle beam as a medium through which the electrostatic charge could reach its target without going astray. In normal earth surface environments, there is too many other particles afloat that absorb and deflect the particles and resulted in an ineffective range to be useful. Now, in the rarefied atmosphere of high altitude, 30,000 feet or above, or even in orbit, this is quite effective and already in use, or I should say, "on guard". The "star wars" program as envisioned was based upon particle beams but has since been abandoned for the air borne lasers mounted on a 747 platform.

[deepsand]

The inherent problem with particle beams, even for massless photons, is one of energy density For those with mass there are also the inescapable relativistic effects, thus requiring even more energy for their being accelerated.

While the energy requirements are relatively easily obtained on land, one then has to contend with the fact that the beam needs to be propagated through a non-vacuum. And, meeting such energy requirements in the near vacuum of high altitudes, or the vacuum of space, is no mean feat.

mjd420nova, on 13 May 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

Now, in the rarefied atmosphere of high altitude, 30,000 feet or above, or even in orbit, this is quite effective and already in use, or I should say, "on guard".

Elaboration, please.

This post has been edited by deepsand: 13 May 2012 - 08:17 AM

[KLanD]

mjd420nova, on 13 May 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

The military has looked long and hard at the development of "phasers" but not had much success. The original plan was to use a projected and focused particle beam as a medium through which the electrostatic charge could reach its target without going astray. In normal earth surface environments, there is too many other particles afloat that absorb and deflect the particles and resulted in an ineffective range to be useful. Now, in the rarefied atmosphere of high altitude, 30,000 feet or above, or even in orbit, this is quite effective and already in use, or I should say, "on guard". The "star wars" program as envisioned was based upon particle beams but has since been abandoned for the air borne lasers mounted on a 747 platform.

There is a group who use polarized (or was it ionized) lasers as lighting rods. They have effectively channeled lighting to hit a specific target on the ground, repeatedly.

[deepsand]

KLanD, on 13 May 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

There is a group who use polarized (or was it ionized) lasers as lighting rods. They have effectively channeled lighting to hit a specific target on the ground, repeatedly.

Given that lightning is an electrical discharge through a channel of ionized air, that photons are chargeless and thus non-ionizing, and that simply ionizing the target alone will not induce lightning, how is this possible?

This post has been edited by deepsand: 13 May 2012 - 08:43 AM

[KLanD]

deepsand, on 13 May 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

KLanD, on 13 May 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

There is a group who use polarized (or was it ionized) lasers as lighting rods. They have effectively channeled lighting to hit a specific target on the ground, repeatedly.

Given that lightning is an electrical discharge through a channel of ionized air, that photons are chargeless and thus non-ionizing, and that simply ionizing the target alone will not induce lightning, how is this possible?

It's probably an ionizing laser then, they effectively create the channel through which the lighting is discharged.. I hope that makes sense, it's been a while since I read up on the subject.

[deepsand]

KLanD, on 13 May 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

deepsand, on 13 May 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

KLanD, on 13 May 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

There is a group who use polarized (or was it ionized) lasers as lighting rods. They have effectively channeled lighting to hit a specific target on the ground, repeatedly.

Given that lightning is an electrical discharge through a channel of ionized air, that photons are chargeless and thus non-ionizing, and that simply ionizing the target alone will not induce lightning, how is this possible?

It's probably an ionizing laser then, they effectively create the channel through which the lighting is discharged.. I hope that makes sense, it's been a while since I read up on the subject.

A laser generates photons, which have no charge, and can thus not themselves be ionized.

And, while a photonic beam of sufficient power can ionize a dense gas by exciting the electrons of the gas molecules, any electric current transmitted by such would be confined to the ionized channel between the laser and the target. It would not induce a natural lightning strike

[crosswordbob]

deepsand, on 13 May 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

KLanD, on 13 May 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

deepsand, on 13 May 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

KLanD, on 13 May 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

There is a group who use polarized (or was it ionized) lasers as lighting rods. They have effectively channeled lighting to hit a specific target on the ground, repeatedly.

Given that lightning is an electrical discharge through a channel of ionized air, that photons are chargeless and thus non-ionizing, and that simply ionizing the target alone will not induce lightning, how is this possible?

It's probably an ionizing laser then, they effectively create the channel through which the lighting is discharged.. I hope that makes sense, it's been a while since I read up on the subject.

A laser generates photons, which have no charge, and can thus not themselves be ionized.

And, while a photonic beam of sufficient power can ionize a dense gas by exciting the electrons of the gas molecules, any electric current transmitted by such would be confined to the ionized channel between the laser and the target. It would not induce a natural lightning strike

http://iopscience.io...1/361/fulltext/

[deepsand]

Said lightning was not a natural strike between a cloud and the laser's target; in fact, the cloud was the laser's target.

The laser was aimed at the clouds, such that the resulting current flow was between the laser and the cloud.

[crosswordbob]

deepsand, on 13 May 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

Said lightning was not a natural strike between a cloud and the laser's target; in fact, the cloud was the laser's target.

The laser was aimed at the clouds, such that the resulting current flow was between the laser and the cloud.

I don't recall anyone asserting otherwise.

[deepsand]

crosswordbob, on 13 May 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

deepsand, on 13 May 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

Said lightning was not a natural strike between a cloud and the laser's target; in fact, the cloud was the laser's target.

The laser was aimed at the clouds, such that the resulting current flow was between the laser and the cloud.

I don't recall anyone asserting otherwise.

KLanD said

Quote

They have effectively channeled lighting to hit a specific target on the ground, repeatedly.

implying, within the context of the discussion, that the target was external to the cloud-to-laser channel.

[crosswordbob]

deepsand, on 13 May 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

crosswordbob, on 13 May 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

deepsand, on 13 May 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

Said lightning was not a natural strike between a cloud and the laser's target; in fact, the cloud was the laser's target.

The laser was aimed at the clouds, such that the resulting current flow was between the laser and the cloud.

I don't recall anyone asserting otherwise.

KLanD said

Quote

They have effectively channeled lighting to hit a specific target on the ground, repeatedly.

implying, within the context of the discussion, that the target was external to the cloud-to-laser channel.

False inference.