[deepsand]

crosswordbob, on 13 May 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

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.

If said post was intended to be within the context of this discussion, which is about beamed energy weapons, then such implication is inherent.

If not, then it should not have been said.

This post has been edited by deepsand: 13 May 2012 - 12:59 PM

[crosswordbob]

deepsand, on 13 May 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

If said post was intended to be within the context of this discussion, which is about beamed energy weapons, then such implication is inherent.

If not, then it should not have been said.

It was tangentially related to the previous poster's comments about utilizing channels of ionized air to direct electrical charge. And to the best of my knowledge, you do not have the authority to decide what should or should not be discussed on this forum, nor to dictate the boundaries of context in which a post that was not directed at you was intended to belong.

[deepsand]

Neither have you standing to declare what is and is not a reasonable interpretation of the post in question.

[crosswordbob]

deepsand, on 13 May 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

Neither have you standing to declare what is and is not a reasonable interpretation of the post in question.

I merely pointed out that his posts did not necessarily imply what you inferred, and that disregarding that inference, his comment was sound. That is a far cry from declaring what he "should not" say.

[deepsand]

You went further by unconditionally declaring my reading to be a "false inference." Did you bother to ask the OP as to his meaning before making such declaration?

And, yes, people do have an obligation to clearly say what they mean.

[crosswordbob]

deepsand, on 13 May 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

You went further by unconditionally declaring my reading to be a "false inference." Did you bother to ask the OP as to his meaning before making such declaration?

And, yes, people do have an obligation to clearly say what they mean.

Seemed perfectly clear to me. Perhaps it was your reading that was at fault, or do you imagine yourself immune to misinterpretation?

This post has been edited by crosswordbob: 13 May 2012 - 02:22 PM

[deepsand]

Given that the subject of this discussion is weaponized energy beams, my reading is contextually perfectly reasonable.

And, given that your initial post failed to point out that the laser system in question is not amenable to being weaponized, it fell to another to clarify that.

You have no legitimate complaint.

[crosswordbob]

deepsand, on 13 May 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

Given that the subject of this discussion is weaponized energy beams, my reading is contextually perfectly reasonable.

And, given that your initial post failed to point out that the laser system in question is not amenable to being weaponized, it fell to another to clarify that.

You have no legitimate complaint.

You may have been talking about weaponized energy beams, but KLanD's initial post was not directed at you. Again, the bounds of the discussion are not set by you.

Anyway, I'm done here. You may continue to blame others for your own inadequacies until you are blue in the face. But until you get "moderator" added to your profile, you have no place deciding what others should or should not say here.

[deepsand]

A plain reading of the thread will show that the subject was indeed that of weaponized energy beams. For you to claim otherwise is patently specious.

To repeat, you have no legitimate complaint.

This post has been edited by deepsand: 13 May 2012 - 03:25 PM

[mjd420nova]

deepsand, on 13 May 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

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.

DS: The "protective weapons" I refered to are the airborne laser and the orbiting laser, both undergoing extensive testing. Getting the energy isn't too much of a problem for either as a small nuclear power cell can provide enough juice to get things operational. The airborne platform has the toughest testing part as the aircraft has to carry rather extensive sheilding for the operators. The orbit based one is easy, no sheilding required as no biologicals are present. The process uses a positive charged stream of particles, actually striped off of a piece of tungstun with high voltage and accelerated and focused by phosporus elements. The charge can be then increased just to the point of becoming erratic but remain within the particle stream. It doesn't work well at all on the planets surface and is subject to natural atmospheric charges that can divert and even discharge the particle charges due to the airs density. Testing has yeilded excellent results and has been envisioned as part of a defensive sheild. It really doesn't take much current to kill, only 50 milliamps will do the trick, the length of the current flow can cause burns, which can ionized the flesh and allow current flow over a larger area. High voltage kills but most often from the shock effect of tossing someone off a power pole or ladder than from the actual heart stopping. Just like a fall from a great height, it's not the fall that kills, but the sudden stop at the end. Higher voltages follow the skins surface and cause terrible burns without damaging organs.

This post has been edited by mjd420nova: 13 May 2012 - 08:19 PM

[deepsand]

mjd420nova, on 13 May 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

DS: The "protective weapons" I refered to are the airborne laser and the orbiting laser, both undergoing extensive testing. Getting the energy isn't too much of a problem for either as a small nuclear power cell can provide enough juice to get things operational. The airborne platform has the toughest testing part as the aircraft has to carry rather extensive sheilding for the operators. The orbit based one is easy, no sheilding required as no biologicals are present. The process uses a positive charged stream of particles, actually striped off of a piece of tungstun with high voltage and accelerated and focused by phosporus elements. The charge can be then increased just to the point of becoming erratic but remain within the particle stream. It doesn't work well at all on the planets surface and is subject to natural atmospheric charges that can divert and even discharge the particle charges due to the airs density. Testing has yeilded excellent results and has been envisioned as part of a defensive sheild.

Defensive shield against what?

Required energy densities are dependent on a number of variables, such as composition of target, velocity of target, location of target, range to target, and time on target.

mjd420nova, on 13 May 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

It really doesn't take much current to kill, only 50 milliamps will do the trick, the length of the current flow can cause burns, which can ionized the flesh and allow current flow over a larger area. High voltage kills but most often from the shock effect of tossing someone off a power pole or ladder than from the actual heart stopping. Just like a fall from a great height, it's not the fall that kills, but the sudden stop at the end. Higher voltages follow the skins surface and cause terrible burns without damaging organs.

Yes, a very small current in the right place can kill. E.g., a 1.5 V C-cell, with electrodes placed properly placed, will induce heart failure.

As for the "skin effect," it's actually the frequency, rather than the voltage, that determines how deeply the current flows; the higher the frequency, the more current flow is confined to the outer boundary layer of the conductor. That 110-120 VAC is so deadly is that 60Hz is low enough that very much of the current flows through the interior of ones body.

[ElizabethF]

deepsand, on 12 May 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

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.

Thanks for your elaboration on the subject, "deepsand"

[KLanD]

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.

Exactly.. the flow would be from the coil to the target.

[KLanD]

crosswordbob, on 13 May 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

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/

Thanks for the reference Bob. I knew I wasn't crazy.. well today at least ;P

[KLanD]

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.

I should have worded that better, since lighting does go from the ground up. However, the principle is still sound.

[deepsand]

KLanD, on 14 May 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

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.

I should have worded that better, since lighting does go from the ground up. However, the principle is still sound.

Regardless of the direction of current flow, it cannot be re-directed to a target external to the channel of ionized gases between the cloud and the laser.

As best, said system might be used for harnessing electrostatic potentials, if a reliable method can be devised for its not destroying the optical system on the ground.

[YellowEagle]

It's the amparage that kills you. You can take a lot of voltage at no amps and survive it, but add a amp or a few and it could stop your heart and give you some very nasty burns were ever it should ground to or worse.

[crosswordbob]

YellowEagle, on 15 May 2012 - 04:56 AM, said:

It's the amparage that kills you. You can take a lot of voltage at no amps and survive it, but add a amp or a few and it could stop your heart and give you some very nasty burns were ever it should ground to or worse.

It's the volts that jolts, but the mills that kills.

[KLanD]

deepsand, on 14 May 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

Regardless of the direction of current flow, it cannot be re-directed to a target external to the channel of ionized gases between the cloud and the laser.

As best, said system might be used for harnessing electrostatic potentials, if a reliable method can be devised for its not destroying the optical system on the ground.

Who's talking about re-directing? I'm talking about using the same principle to direct and concentrate the arcs coming from the Tesla coil.

[KLanD]

crosswordbob, on 15 May 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

YellowEagle, on 15 May 2012 - 04:56 AM, said:

It's the amparage that kills you. You can take a lot of voltage at no amps and survive it, but add a amp or a few and it could stop your heart and give you some very nasty burns were ever it should ground to or worse.

It's the volts that jolts, but the mills that kills.

LOL!

It wouldn't be deadly (with the specs above) but it would be a kind of long range tazer.