The US Military Heats Up

Well said, Kris. Bravo! (Brava? Still have not sorted that one out! )

Yes. Del stated clearly in his PM to me:

"I notice from your profile that you are a great admirer of the A10...a fine plane.

It is a shame that the pilot who fired on a British column (killing several), not once but twice was not more disciplined..."

And that is not out of context, because the three dots are his, not mine.

It was a tragic mistake, nothing more. If there had been more, to be sure, the pilot involved would be up on charges by the USAF Judge Advocate General. That a UK coroner found there to be criminal negligence only makes one to suspect a bid for celebrity or for higher office, or both, playing to the lowest common denominator of the British public.

'If you aren't with us, you're against us'

This sort of retort has no logic.

Logic being a mainstay of engineering.

"This sort of retort has no logic."

Neither does a blanket statement and generalized accusation such as the one you made. In fact, Allied troops are quite disciplined, especially when compared to insurgents, terrorists, and a certain feline correspondent who shall remain nameless, not that I would place you in the same league with the others. However, it makes just about as much sense to do so as to make a declaration such as the one you made, "friendly fire" notwithstanding as an excuse!

Other than a few well-publicized mistakes and errors in judgement (they are after all human beings and not machines), have Allied troops run amok in the streets of Baghdad or Kabul? I think not. Do you hear of Iraqi women being violated and murdered on a wholesale basis? Young men rounded up and massacred? Yet, these same "undisciplined troops", must constantly be on the watch for any suspicious native man, woman, or child who might knowingly or unknowingly be carrying an IED or worse, knowing that to hold their fire if they guess wrong may easily result in the death of themselves and their comrades.

Go right on down to the recruiting office and sign on up. Talk to us in a couple months about discipline. The worst thing is that your fellow men have died to allow you to talk this trash. We talk engineering because we are engineers. We talk of duty and DISCIPLINE because we have served. You may not agree with the war, but do have respect for your soldiers.

It is my experience that troops of many of the nations I have served with are very well disciplined in fact as a demonstration of an absolute the specific men and women I served with were absolutely disciplined in my view and in the views of their peers in addition to the scrutiny of many detractors. The reason this is possible in a quality military is that those who were not disciplined were culled quickly and with prejudice.

I don't know your personal experience so perhaps you milage may vary, have you served with a military unit?

"By your logic, there is little difference between headlights with and without reflectors."

That is NOT what I said. I could say, "By your logic, headlights with reflectors are the same as laser beams.", but that would not make it so.

I was merely pointing out that all energy waves at least here on Planet Earth, not just omni-directional waves, diminish in intensity with distance, including energy beams, albeit to a much lesser degree, as there is almost always some degree of divergence, either because of lack of perfection (error) in focusing, refraction due to atmospheric effects, or other (yes, undefined!) factors. I agree it does not necessarily follow the exact inverse square LAW, and I beg your pardon if I said so, it was not what I meant.

Also, at the time I was thinking of a concentrated parallel beam, like from a parabolic dish, rather than a converging, focused beam projector. Now I know different (Thanks, Kris!)

Besides, headlights (assuming you are talking about the automotive kind) are not a very good example of your collimated beams, as they are actually designed not to just pinpoint a spot, but actually to provide a directed flood of light to an area in front of the automobile. And they do diminish rapidly beyond a certain distance, as such long range capability is neither desired nor safe, else they might temporarily blind drivers of oncoming vehicles from much farther away with little warning, which is why we have both HI and LO beams for different vertical beam angles, ranges and field width (horizontal angle of spread).

That is NOT what I said.

I never said you said that "there is little difference between headlights with and without reflectors."

What you said, in post 17 is this:

It should also follow the inverse square law, i.e. its effect will diminish in inverse proportion to the square of the distance.

By mentioning a headlight I was hoping to get you thinking along the right lines with a simple concept. The principal is that there is a fundamental and dramatic difference between a focused or collimated or laser-like beam and a point source radiating into a sphere. The very strength, the very principal, of weapons like this is that they do not follow the inverse square law: That's the whole idea... the whole enchilada. If this thing worked like a filament without a reflector, or a CB antenna, or star in space, radiating into a sphere according to the inverse square law, then the people operating it would be toast, and the people in the distance would be guffawing.

There is a family in my neighborhood that is undergoing daily torture, the thing has been ever increasing for the past two and 1/2 years to a present daily / weekly torture routine. They are overlooked by a large condo comp-lex and cannot escape the effects. There are unusual antennas on the complex also. The effects are:

Heat and pain beams to the heart and lungs

Wide range of beams to the stomach area

Heat & pain & orientation beams to all head areas

Denial of sleep

Pressure and shortness of breathe to the chest

Needle width to shower of intense needles causing cell damage to head and neck. by using salt rubs in the bath or shower patterns of the radiation are shown. Redness of skin and the salt is painful in the affected areas.

And just who among you claims the US Gov has the right to do this? To anybody and to a family of citizens minding their own business. Although not politically correct.

Anyone who defends this action must be running in sub-human mode, probably Republican to boot.

Cellular Relay station, usually covered by a billboard sign or other such camouflage. You may approach your municipality to complaint, demand removal on ground of health hazards, or sue for compensation. It's a world-wide problem, and some legislation is in progress, in many countries lately.

I didn't realize until today that your first post was in response to one of mine, in which I mentioned that the inverse square law does not apply to beams. Cell stations are omnidirectional (at least for the signals passing back and forth from relay to cell phone) but I'd assume that the traffic to cell towers from relays would be beamed.

If I had one in my neighborhood, I'd be concerned too, because the signal has to be very strong when your are close, to be adequately strong as a distance (i.e, 100 times stronger at 50' than at 500'). I assume your concerns are along these lines:

http://www.ideaireland.org/emrresearch.htm

Ken , I'm fairly uninformed about the whole technology here. Do you know of a reasonable site to get up to speed on this topic - terminology, basic power transfer stats etc ? At present I'm guessing that cell phone masts within a 'cell' transmit with a relay station etc (?).

Currently there's a lot of concern about cell phones themselves, and location of masts. As ever in the UK, technical info gets marginalized by panic. There's plenty of sites offering opinion, but as a bit of novice it's difficult to decide on reasonably respected on-line resources to read. Personally I wouldn't spend more time than I need with any gadget like a mobile phone next to my head ( and people are warned about this, most seeming to ignore such warnings). Masts are a hot issue , since the UK is a veritable forest of them , with many institution such as schools gaining revenue by being host to them. I have seen a great many masts disguised as trees, though I'm assuming this is more aesthetic than conspiracy ! In urban areas the roof-tops resemble a rain-forest canopy with various types of communication mast.

As a slightly off-topic extra : Mobiles have been prohibited within Hospitals until recently ( on the basis that they may interfere with sensitive medical equipment), and people had to use premium rate public phones. Now is has been declared that this is not a problem, but Hospitals operate different policy on allowing people to use mobile phones. There is no coherent or legislated rule about this.

Any general intro site you know of would be of interest.

Kris.

Kris -- I'm pretty uninformed too, and don't know of a site that deals with this stuff in any comprehensive way.

Back when I was a kid, having your feet routinely x-rayed (to fit shoes) was "perfectly safe". Now, it's clear that x-rays are linked to cancer of the ovaries (and many other types, as well, I assume). Now, MRI scans seem benign, partly because the frequencies are low. But in the natural world, your body would never be subjected to a magnetic field of anything even remotely close to that strength, and for so long.

In some ways, I think that we believe that because we "know" more now than we did 30, 50, etc years ago, when we say some technology is "safe," it really is safe. However, the technologies in question are often technologies about which we really don't know a lot: we haven't done double blind studies, etc. Do we have historical correlations between MRI usage and rates of cancer or other diseases? I think we won't have those correlations until we have more history. Then, perhaps we'll look back and think: how silly that we thought MRI scans are perfectly safe, just as we look back on foot x-rays now.

Thanks Ken, It's good to hear I'm not the only one who is baffled at times. One of the perversities of the internet is the 'more is less' thing. Too many 'fringe' web pages make it harder to find the good ones. I totally agree with your comment about how we tend to look back with dismay. So much around us has not been proven safe with time. Quite chilling really. The usage of mobile phones by youngsters seems like a potentially devastating thing. The insanity is that they use them as replacement for more normal social interaction.

"If I had one in my neighborhood, I'd be concerned too, because the signal has to be very strong when your are close, to be adequately strong as a distance (i.e, 100 times stronger at 50' than at 500')."

Oh, Ken! So now you are saying RF energy intensity does follow the inverse square law, or is that only from "omnidirectional" antennas? You really should read up on your radio theory. Your so-called "collimated" beam antennas are still a source of RF energy, and as such, must follow the same physical law as "omnis". The "beam" antennas commonly used by Cellular companies are usually of the Yagi-Uda type, commonly referred to as "Yagis". The difference is that the energy is highly concentrated in a very narrow angle, but it is still an angle, not perfect parallel "beams", and thus subject to divergence.

The degree of concentration, and therefore increase in power density leaving the antenna, is known as the "gain" of the antenna, expressed in +dB_i (decibels increase relative to an isotropic radiator, a theoretically perfect "omni") or +dB_d (decibels increase relative to the broadside of a dipole antenna) a more practical definition for comparison of antennas.

Perhaps the confusion lies in the difference between power density and field strength. Power density, a three dimensional phenomena, ALWAYS decrease with the inverse square of the distance, but intensity or field strength, a two-dimensional phenomena (in the "far field" anyway), only decreases with the inverse (not inverse square) of the distance. For this reason, the FCC has proscribed RF safety factors for use by Radio Amateurs relating to frequency, power level, and "safe" distances for exposure. Presumably commercial radio users have similar, if not stricter, requirements.

However, RF intensity, or field strength, is not a simple formula. The phenomena follows an equation which takes into account three main terms, of which two (the ones with an inverse squared radius factor) apply only to the "near" field, with only the simpler, and less decreasing, inverse radius factor applying to the far field. That is what I was trying to say in my earlier posting, when is said that energy beams will "diminish in energy density in proportion (not necessarily direct proportion) to the inverse of the square of the distance." In the far field the intensity, or field strength, will only diminish in proportion to the inverse (not the square of the inverse), of the distance, but it will still diminish.

When you were talking about focused beams and collimated beams you sounded like they were one and the same, but they are very different. A focused beam, such as we discovered this heating beam technology to be, similar to a magnifying glass, may, and likely will, diverge even more than an omnidirectional radiator once it passes its focal point, whereas a truly collimated beam, like a laser, or a parabolic dish for example, will not diverge, in space, in space anyway. However, we know that air, will refract and bend light, varying to different degrees with wavelength.

My point was, and is, and you seem to agree to some extent (at least for "omni" antennas), that RF energy will be stronger closer to it source and diminish in intensity (for a given area) at a distance. But it follows for directional antennas as well, with the directional antennas merely concentrating the available energy. If this were not so then "beaming" of energy would be extremely practical and efficient and we would not need high voltage wires to carry power, but simply beam it from one point to another via RF using "highly collimated beam" antennas. Microwave relay stations which boost the incoming signal would only need to deflect the beam to follow the curvature of the earth if there was no diminishing of intensity with distance. The truth is that RF energy, as does all radiated electromagnetic energy, diminishes in intensity with distance, perhaps not on a squared basis (near field only for RF) regardless of type of antenna or beam. The amount it diminishes IS affected by the type of antenna or radiator, this factor being part of the equation.

Putting it more succinctly, the Wikipedia has this to say:

"...the laws of physics, specifically the Rayleigh Criterion or Diffraction limit, used in standard RF (Radio Frequency) antenna design, which also applies to lasers. These laws dictate that any beam will spread (microwave or laser) and become weaker and more diffuse over greater distance. The larger the transmitter antenna or laser aperture, the tighter the beam and the less it will spread as a function of distance (and vice versa)."

QED

I think you've said a few rational things in this post, STL. That's progress, and you can be proud of that.

On the other hand, you seem to be clinging to your misreading of my first post on this subject, somehow concluding, it seems, that I think that the inverse square law has no applicability. On the contrary, I believe it is applicable in many situations. What I wrote in that first post was this:

I think this is not the case for this device. The inverse square law applies for omnidirectional waves, not for focused beams.

That post was in reaction to your assertion, "It should also follow the inverse square law, i.e. its effect will diminish in inverse proportion to the square of the distance." This assertion was, I'm sure you will admit, nonsense, because a focused beam does not behave in that way. You need only place your hand under a magnifying glass on a sunny day to convince yourself of the error of your thinking. Move your hand close to the glass, and it will not feel hot. Move it away until the spot is focused, and that spot will feel very hot -- painfully so if the glass is large and the day is sunny.

So when you write, "Oh, Ken! So now you are saying RF energy intensity does follow the inverse square law, or is that only from "omnidirectional" antennas?" you seem to be implying that I have somehow "changed my tune". I have not. In that very first post I wrote that the inverse square law applies to other situations, just not to the one you claimed it applied to.

Although the naive can theorize that a laser beam will diverge due to dust and other atmospheric effects, (and that therefore the beam diverges in a way that mimics the divergence of rays from a point source of light, and that therefore the inverse square law will apply) in practice, measurements show that this is not the case. This is something you can demonstrate to yourself by shining a laser pointer at a tree 10 feet away and then at one 100 feet away (at which the beam should be 1/100 as bright, if it follows the inverse square law). Then do the same with a flashlight. If you don't want to take the time, then read the results of this middle school experiment.

You end with QED. I wonder if you think you have actually proven something, or if you are simply a fan of the two QED's: KQED in SF and and WQED in Pittsburgh -- both great public TV stations. If it's the latter, I applaud you -- I've spent time in the Pittsburgh studio and enjoyed it thoroughly. If it is the former, however, I suspect whatever you may think you are proving is a bit different that what you really are proving.

Ken,

We are in agreement on some of what you say (focused beams, like light through a magnifying glass will converge at a point and be weaker closer to the source). The "assertion" you quoted was made when I believed the device used some type of fixed reflector, not one that focused the beams at some point. On the other hand, you did continue to put forth YOUR assertion that "microwave beams", as in from a directional antenna (you never specified a laser), do not diverge or show diminishing intensity over distance. Sorry, but I cannot let your submittal of a high school, sorry, middle school experiment pass when you try to use it to prove your other points. There are so many holes in the "conclusion" and how it was arrived at you could drive a tractor trailer rig through them!

Firstly, look at the range used, 0 to 2m! What a joke! Of course a laser shows very little divergence over this range! But if you really look at his data, and throw out the flyers (there was obviously something wrong with his equipment to have so many errors), you will notice there is a slight downward trend. I would have liked to see this data extended to 20m or 200m. Then you would have seen something! But to offer this as proof that lasers have zero divergence? Come on, even you should be able to admit how bogus this is! Does it follow the inverse square law? Hard to say. This trendline might be linear, or it could be following a very shallow inverse square curve. Even if the laser were to prove only an inverse (not squared) relation to distance, is this proof that microwave power density from a beam antenna (not a microwave laser) does not follow the inverse square law for an area, or have a diminishing signal strength that is inversely proportional to distance? I hardly think so. It is the same as comparing apples to oranges.

The funny thing is this experiment actually proves that a flashlight beam, which is akin to the headlights you referred to in another post, and NOT an omnidirectional point source, DOES follow the inverse square law, as the curve is so obviously NOT linear.

Yes, a theoretically perfect laser would have zero divergence, but there is no such thing in reality. You can approach this with bigger and longer lasers, so a higher percentage of photons are coherent, so even in space, a real laser will show some, albeit very small, divergence. But to offer this up as proof that a "microwave beam" from an antenna does the same thing is somewhat ridiculous.

You seem to want to look at everything as either black or white, a point source versus a "focused, highly collimated beam", when in reality there are many "shades of gray". At what point (pardon the pun) does a point source become a "beam"? When it has a flat reflector, so all its energy is concentrated within 180°? Probably not. When it has corner reflectors that limit the "beam width" (uh, oh, there's that word!) to around 90 degrees and increase it gain? Hmm, getting warmer! What about a Yagi-Uda "beam" antenna? It has high gain and is fairly narrow, right? A parabolic dish antenna? A very large portion of its energy is reflected out in parallel waves, but not all. What is the maximum angle between photon/e-m wave paths that will qualify as a "beam"? Obviously it is not zero. Funny that you even put "focused" together with "collimated", since by definition collimated energy travels in parallel paths and would never be "focused" except at infinity, whereas, as you so aptly pointed out, this energy weapon has distinct, non-infinite, real focal points, and so would definitely diverge beyond the point at which it was currently focused!

I suggest you pick up a copy of the "ARRL Antenna Book" and give the chapter on microwave antennas a quick read. You may want to pick up your old college Physics text as well and re-read a few sections.

Hi STL,

I think this post shows some solid thinking. Of course Brittanie, the middle school scientist, might be a little offended at your reference to her equipment as "his equipment." She might also be a little miffed at your characterizing her range selection as "a joke." I suspect that for her purposes, the range selection worked pretty well, and that it demonstrated (or more likely confirmed, for her) that there is a fundamental difference between a laser and a flashlight regarding the way in which the intensity changes with distance. I suspect that she was bright enough that she realized that, with middle school equipment, and given the constraints on her time, she could not reliably measure intensity of corresponding points of a flashlight beam a 2 meters and at 20 meters. Where would she find a 20M long, completely dark room? Would the electronics she was using be sufficiently linear and sensitive to make useful measurements? She probably knows better than you or me. I suspect she also realized that she was not doing original research, and that she was instead demonstrating a fundamental difference between lasers and flashlights, and by extension, many other diverging light "beams" (there's that word that apparently excites you -- you need not reveal why -- sometime secrets are best kept). I think she was bright enough that she could see, at just two meters, the crux of the matter.

Others might not be so bright (and, of course, I am not putting you in that "less bright" class -- you are far more qualified to speak to that than I am). (In fact, "brightness" is probably overrated. There is a lot to be said for diligence too. And a lot to be said for multiple intelligences, the concept promoted by Gardner.) But if for whatever reason, you feel the need to extend the experiment out to 20M, then I'd suggest doing so, for your own edification. Perhaps in performing the experiment out to 20M, you will gain new respect for Brittanie's efforts. You will almost certainly gain insight into the fact that a flashlight beam is anything but uniform in light distribution from side to side and up and down.

After you've finished with your flashlight/laser experiment, then report your findings to us. You might also measure signal strength around your house for your wireless network. You could spend a great many hours doing this before you could find any path to move along in which the signal strength varies with distance in any perfectly simple inverse or inverse square way. If you come away from that experience with the notion that things are not as simple as they sometimes appear, then your time will not have been wasted.

But in any case, although Brittanie might be offended, I nevertheless think you have brought up some potentially good suggestions for improving this middle school experiment, and would heartily recommend your carrying forth with the experiment to help consolidate these concepts for you. Look for these principles: 1. In diverging beams, intensity falls off with distance, often with something close to the square of distance if there are not reflections, interference, etc. to take into account. 2. In converging (focused) beams, intensity increases with distance until the focal point is reached, at which point the beam diverges (see item 1) 3. In parallel (collimated, laser-like) beams, intensity remains relatively constant with distance, to the extent that you can ignore scattering, atmospheric absorption, and other interferences.

I'd love to say that I agree with your choice of reading material for me, but I already read far too much technical drivel, and far too few novels.

KDKA

I am not going to beat a dead horse or any other equine animal except to say that I was not criticising HER work, but your choice in using it to try to prove your point.

"I'd love to say that I agree with your choice of reading material for me, but I already read far too much technical drivel, and far too few novels."

Ok, then try "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" or other novels in Robert Heinlein's Future History series, if you are not already a Heinlein fan. Fascinating story lines involving romance, espionage, power politics, revolution, and adventure interwoven with speculative technology based on real science, perhaps a bit dated, but interesting nonetheless. Sort of Jules Verne for the 20th Century (yeah, I know its now the 21st century, but that just makes seeing if or how his predicted technologies did or did not come true.

If that tome is a bit much, what got me started reading Heinlein was a cute little novella involving robotics, hypersleep (suspended animation), and time travel called "The Door into Summer" . I highly recommend it. But if you do, don't read the Wikipedia synopsis, because it is full of spoilers!

Del, darling, as we learnt from rupertal in the "why does fat go through foil" thread, aluminium foil has micro(very small)holes in it...and Raytheon state that the radiant energy can find its way through small cracks (and round corners)...so the foil won't work anyway.

Will a Korean hunting bow do in the meantime (still not got the longbow )

Crispy bacon anyone?

I heard that dustbin lisd would work good ! Does it work for this kind of technology ? Perhaps there is more to the West-end show 'Stomp' than I thought.

If you mean, would a dustbin (US: trashcan) lid work as a reflector of millimeter-wave energy, yes, to a point, but only if it is metal (aluminum or galvanized steel being most common) and not plastic.

Even so, as Del pointed out, this energy will "find its way around corners", which I suspect is somewhat like how when light is shielded, a dark shadow (the umbra) is produced directly under the shield, but around this is an area not quite so dark (the penumbra) where light has "leaked around" the shield. If the heat is intense enough, it should eventually build up even in this "gray" area, enough to be very uncomfortable anyway.

It may even be reflected of of other metallic objects in the vicinity, or on the person, such as a belt buckle, metal zippers, metal necklaces, handheld, wrist, or belt/pocket carried electronics (phones, wristwatches, ipods), etc. Short metal pieces may even act as antennae resonating as multiples of quarter-wavelength receivers which are short circuited, with eddy currents heating them up until they become too hot to be worn comfortably.

It might be very difficult to shield oneself from this type of energy weapon.

I'm sure the folk at Raytheon have considered all possibilities, but it does leave open questions about what a well organized mob could do - defensive shields, and even re-directional devices. A lot of the rent-a-crowd type people are very organized and probably don't lack for technical experts among their membership. The whole ADS technology could be rendered useless in planned riot/crowd situations. A conventional 'Stop or we kill' approach seems much cheaper/transparent in meaning as far as I can judge so far. A few years of field deployment will probably tell, but meantime it could leave troops in a position of having a false sense of security. The principle of it's intended use sounds good if it meets the objective, but that a very big 'if' from what I've been able to find so far. If I was one of the people serving their country I'd far sooner rely on a perimeter manned with good old fashioned guns and people than a glorified tin can on wheels. I wonder if the military have spent a similar ammount on counter ADS measures to see what problems may occur for front line troops.

And what happens when one of the technical experts in the rioting crowd does a little preparation and makes a more portable version? And uses it against the "authorities"?

Whilst I understand and (on one level) concur with the case for having this equipment that Zap (in particular) has put forward, I can't help thinking that there is no way that its use will be limited to these reasonable cases.

This technology *will* be abused, it *will* be used to torture people, it will be used to stop legitimate demonstrations (and in this last case, yes it would have preferable to the tanks the Chinese employed/deployed in Tianaman Square). It might not be handheld, or even portable, at the moment, but that improvement will surely come - ol' whatisname's Law still applies.

That last paragraph is not an indictment of the technology, but rather of human nature. As a species, we will take whatever tool we can and use it to our own best personal advantage - and in some cases this means others suffer.

And as Kris has pointed out, the long term effects are not known. But then, mankind has a habit of using things until it discovers what those effects are. I'm not sure how you would carry out an accelerated test in this instance. I can see how you would accelerate a multiple exposure test, but I can't see how you would accelerate a single/low number exposure and then measure its effects over time. And on whom would these tests be carried out? Volunteers, murderers, death row prisoners, animals, the terminally ill?

Did you miss my running comments here ER ? I'm running an anti-ADS line here. Trouble is , it's a done deal so I'm trying to stir up some ' you don't quite get it' stuff. ADS is really nasty, unproven, devastatingly capable of modifying, not viable, is going to get used for other agenda ..... Most people on this thread seem to be getting a weaponry hard-on without considering the implications of OK-ing this technology, and I am totally anti it. It fails on so many grounds to make sense. I have sympathy with front line troops, but not half-baked technological testing such as ADS. This kit will not achieve what people want, and will probably cause more suffering. It's being peddled as some sort of 'friendly' tool to help troops. Watch out for such technology in a place near home soon. They'll probably give it to the Chinese to ground-test on civil protest first. It won't look so cute in Washington or London.. I think we're in agreement but your post was in reply to me which is confoozing. No worries, I just like any excuse to rant against this technology.

Rant away! Your taxes are not paying for it anyway! Mine are!

I don't see how you can say, "They'll probably give it to the Chinese to ground-test on civil protest first."

Please tell me when and where this has ever occured with US military hardware? Giving it "to the Chinese", that is. I think you have us confused with the Russians, who despite the fall of communism, continue to peddle military hardware throughout the world without regard to who is the ultimate purchaser, but this time, not in a quest for world domination but in a quest for hard currency to support a failing economy that clings to remnants of the old Soviet system. Sure the US sells military hardware as well, but we try to keep it restricted to Allies and friendly governments who do not have records of human rights abuses. Yes, there was a time, not proud of the fact, when we did support some governments with shaky reputations in that area, but I don't believe we ever sold, gave, or lent any weaponry to the Chinese for use against their own people.

And why should anyone use such cutting edge, high-technology weaponry for torture, when good old beatings, electricity, chemicals, fire, and semi-drowning are much more capable of inflicting pain and anguish?

I think you are getting hot under the collar about nothing, or is someone hitting you with a heat ray!

I'm not especially having a go at the US ( citing China was a bit hasty/flippant), British companies sell some very questionable stuff to even more questionable regimes. The UK is probably going to tool up with this technology some time in the future.The ADS will probably get field tested in Iraq or somewhere round there. Have you had any situations recently in the USA where police or other agencies have had to disperse crowds, and how long do you think it may be before they risk rolling the ADS out at home ? It shouldn't be too long, because it's said to be harmless. Next time you see a riot at home dispersed without ADS you might wonder why.

OK, as I understand it this is being designed and tested as a Military weapon. There current insurgency in Iraq is a Military conflict, not a civil one. Yes, some military weapons do get adapted to civilian (police) use, but it will be a long time before such a system as this is used by civilian security forces, if only because of the costs and technology involved.

Besides wouldn't it be better to disperse a crowd with a little pain and discomfort rather than bullets and nightsticks? Or shall we go back to muskets and bayonets? By that I mean abandon new technology that attempts to quell without killing, and go back to scaring the heck out of rioters by loud noise, bullets flying, and an advancing line of sharp spear-points? Even other so-called non-lethal riot control weapons, water cannon, rubber bullets, tear gas, etc. have been shown to cause injury and death. To me this IS a step forward in the right direction, IF they can work the bugs out.

OK, as I understand it this is being designed and tested as a Military weapon.

Isn't the whole point that it's not a 'weapon' in the usual sense ? Just nit-picking words - I think we're sort of agreeing here. Also the definition of 'civilian' gets a bit blurred in places like Iraq, and I don't think the jump to use in home-grown crowd control is that big. I'm all for non-lethal control measures being developed, but this one still has question marks in my mind. It's possibly no worse ( in terms of potential for misuse) than Taser devices. We stopped using rubber bullets in Northern Ireland because of the type of results they were producing- they are supposed to be aimed to bounce up off the ground and hit the target in the lower leg. Aiming can get imaginative when your mate has just caught a petrol bomb etc.

Hi Kris, It's taken me two days to catch up with all the posts here, and my overall impression was that most posters couldn't see the "it'll get used for something else" argument for the "let's support the troops" stance (not knocking the stance or the troops - just that some of the posters here IMHO seemed not to get beyond that fairly limited application to a wider look at the implications) and I thought I'd try and say it again, in a different way.

Just be happy that I'm agreeing with you!

That's cool ER. .... But I enjoy a wee bit of argument. In a good debate you have to try arguing both sides so as to spot the weaknesses of your own position. I'm sure that the best debating type people could swap position and win all the time. Whether that means they are 'good' is another question though.. The better question is, who would be the most fearsome opponent ? Our current politicos couldn't do it, but maybe some Victorian era ones could.

Our schools still produce excellent debaters. The problem is that most of them are smart enough to avoid politics as a career!

Many of them do, however, become journalists, which is why so many politicians get skewered when interviewed!

I actually took classes in Speech and Debate and considered joining the Debate team, but found my abilities to speak extemporaneously a little weak. You really need to have your wits about you all the time to debate, and any little slip is all it takes for the other side to prevail. I prefer the written word, which is, usually, a little more calm and considered, although the internet and instant texting certainly makes for potentially nasty exchanges.

I have a feeling that I might tend to veer off-topic occasionally (!) in debate. The net is good for chatting to other people, but written forms lack all the life of oral debate. Timing and intonation are hard/impossible to convey in writing. The perfectly timed pause can speak volumes as can subtle gestures of facial expression. A lot of good debates can look lacklustre when transcribed. The presence of a 'live' audience adds 'temper' to exchanges which is, as you say, what the internet lacks. The internet does carry the advantage of recording debate immediately and exactly (for better or worse). There's no such thing as a true 'delete' in cyberspace. I very rarely send TXT messages - they have to be the most dire form of communication ever devised.

What makes you think that this is the only immoral cowardly tool they are using?? This is only the opening salvo, to see how the public at large takes it.

When they can cause pain of any kind remotely, faceless, without trace, without conscience the result will be a world that will dispense uncalled for pain and horror to innocents non-combatants and just because they want to torture. The torture guys will be having a field day, all sponsored by the ones hired to protect you.

HG Wells was predicting a benign place compared to what these guys are cooking up.

Wait and see.

Totally agree. I wonder if they have tried it down in Cuba yet.

"immoral cowardly tool they are using??"

Wait a minute. A weapon that inflicts pain temporarily without killing, and allows the target to avoid the effects by simply leaving the scene, yet can be used to effectively prevent brainwashed young men, women, and children from being used in the cowardly act of being so-called "suicide bombers", is an immoral cowardly tool?

In what universe?

Do you think it takes bravery to blow yourself up when you are convinced your miserable life will end and you will be transported to paradise immediately? Using your own death to inflict pain, death, destruction, and misery on others, including both your enemy and innocents, with no negative consequences (prison, torture, execution) to contend with, is surely a cowardly act, and those that order these attacks are even more cowardly, as they do not even risk their own lives or freedom.

These same men who give the orders in the insurgency are the same ones who followed Saddam's orders to murder, torture, and practice genocide on their own people, as well as those whose country they had invaded or attacked. Let us not forget Saddam's nerve gas attacks on ethnic groups within his own borders, or the invasion, looting, and rape of Kuwait, or the launching of SCUD missile terror weapons against Saudi Arabia and Israel. And of course, real, mutilating, mind-destroying, unspeakable (cattle prods to private parts, electrocution, multiple burning and near drowning, etc.) torture of enemies and political dissidents.

Now we have developed a technology to fight back in a defensive way, i.e. making attackers want to leave without permanently damaging them by inflicting a modicum of temporary pain, and you call this torture? Yes, in the technical sense, it is, because it does inflict pain. But unlike real torture, which is relentless and inescapable, and which was practiced by Saddam and his henchmen for decades, this weapon does provide the target with a choice: continue your offensive action, or retreat with body and mind intact.

I say, Bravo! Keep up the good work, Raytheon.

Got to agree with you.

One side is trying to develop ways to convince 14 year old boys to blow themselves while targeting innocents to kill, maim and terrorize. The other side is trying to develop non-lethal ways to stop terrorists.

I recall that the Nazis had an effective way of dealing with insurgents. For every German soldier killed they would randomly select 20 civilians and execute them.

It is not too hard to identify which are the good guys and which are the bad guys if you don't let your prejudices get in the way.

ahem....

I don't think the comment by Moose at #6 infers that registered members can get away with going to far off-topic either. I'm just saying guys , because I have a feeling that when this thread gets noticed by admin next they may decide to do a bit of culling themselves. This may sound a tad hypocritical coming from Mr Off-Topic himself , but I think too much chat on some off-topics is pushing it. It's always possible to have a chat via messaging. Like I said , I'm just saying and shall continue to visit here if the thread still exists tomorrow.

As usual, any application of technology that can restrict the freedoms of individuals either in their intent to protest or in their efforts to do harm for a cause is always charged with political, ethical, emotional rhetoric.

Its really a question of perspective. If we add to this our diverse demographic here it allows for all kind of what some would (based on their perspective) consider off topic posts. It is my personal opinion that this is the area in need of the greatest quantity of discussion. Too little discussion of technology used in this fashion is allowed by too few governments and ignored social ramifications by the engineers themselves is almost epic in its absence throughout history - The atom and its persuit comes to mind.

There remains however the absolute truth as engineers we can appreciate the absolute, we seek it as a matter of course in our designs and our concepts. It is this absolute that we should seek to come to regardless of our perspective. Absolutes can only be defined after considering the entire data set, not just the set we accept.

I absolutely disagree with statements that define individuals with some form of fuzzy logic, broad categorizations, generalizations when as an engineer I am seeking data to understand the broad perspective and thus the ramifications of my technology.

That's a large quantity of words to state that short trite over generalizations are best left to philosophers. Lets be engineers and consider how this technology affects us.

Eloquently put.

I agree with the general tone of this entirely. Oddly enough though, I could (almost) not agree less with the comment re philosophers. Real philosophers seem incapable of making generalizations. If ever there was a group capable of writing books about seemingly straightforward concepts (which an engineer might dismiss in a couple sentences or two) it would be philosophers. Is reality objective or subjective? Engineers can dismiss that whole discussion in casual generalizations, whereas philosophers can spin (and have spun) the debate into millions of pages.

This is neither thread nor the forum for a debate on philosophy -- but I just bring it up to reinforce your contention that people are different, with different experiences and views, and that, yes, it does make sense to discuss the societal ramifications of technology in an engineering forum. It's (vaguely) amusing that as I read your post, I found myself saying: " yes... yes... yes... yes... yes... huh?!)

. . .It's (vaguely) amusing that as I read your post, I found myself saying: " yes... yes... yes... yes... yes... huh?!)

I never trust philosophers, its a predisposition of my uneducated mind. They have a knack for rationalizing things beyond all fact.

I prefer a careful studied approach to the facts, followed by an absolute selfish act based on goals and perspective resulting in personal gain, with others suffering the consequences. << WRY SMILE >>

" Philosophy is intellectual trouble-making " . I've no idea where I heard that* , but it does have more than a grain of truth in it. I'm still curious about the effects of prolonged heating by this thing (No joy there .Yet ). I can't resist asking any longer - is the avatar a scary face or just one of the Weather Girls ? Getting an urge to tap my feet whilst scared just doesn't seem to work.

* I probably tipped a beer over his head for being so bloody annoying

I like the avatars grin it hints a touch of troublemaking, ehrm. . . something I have never been accused of. . or somthing like that.

Ahhh, more Loki than scary perhaps. I too am accursed with the occasional urge for mischief.

...........it has to be a red bikini!!!!!!!

...... on a plumpish matron!

Getting an urge to tap my feet whilst scared just doesn't seem to work.

Loosen up. Take a walk in the wild side. What's life without fear?

The loureed bikini just made me think Weather Girls. Perhaps tapping my feet was a pathetic attempt to start running. Viewed at the right angle , Zaps avatar could be quite a babe.

"Viewed at the right angle , Zaps avatar could be quite a babe."

I never looked at it that way! I wonder if he had? Yes, reminds me of "The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini", or just a hot babe dancing in the dark in phosphoresent undies, the bottoms having vertical stripes.

Ooh, la, la!

That's pretty wacky , even for '66 ! At least they realised that a glass bikini wasn't such a good idea.shatter , ouch.

Now I'm keeping it for sure - whatever floats your boat fellas -

I'm thinking maniacal grin

"I prefer a careful studied approach to the facts, followed by an absolute selfish act based on goals and perspective resulting in personal gain, with others suffering the consequences."

Zap,

Maybe you ARE evil after all! <grin>

. . .Maybe you ARE evil after all! <grin>

Yeah thats me -

All of this talk about kindly application does not forgive them for creating weapons from hell its self.

Right here in the Good Ol USA those weapons will be used against innocent people who are not politically correct, or who do not think like the guy wielding the horrible thing.

Your otherwise healthy neighbor with the un-explained headaches and generally any out spoken person who does not support the War/Oil/Big Business machine is going to be the ones testing these things.

You think they will be using volunteers???

I would look for its first civilian appearance to be either with the FBI or the NYPD. They seem to reap the first fruits of any military development they deem helpful to their mission.

Ironically, the National Guard, the only actual military organization whose primary mission includes control of civil disturbances (riots, looting, implementation of martial law if necessary during natural or man-made disasters or their aftermath) would probably be the LAST to get such a weapons system, as they usually only get the cast-offs from the regular forces. Even when placed on active duty and serving side-by-side with Regulars and activated Reservists, these "civilian-soldiers" have to make do with less then first-line equipment, and that is a shame.

From what I have heard, and someone correct me if I am wrong, Regular Army and Marines all have the latest MOLLE (MOdular Lightweight Load-carrying Equipment) field gear: integrated body armor vest and weapons, ammunition, hydration, and equipment carrying system, issued to them, while the FNG's (as they are contemptuously referred to by the Regulars) make do with the old ALICE equipment, which was introduced during the Viet Nam conflict. ALICE gear (All-purpose, Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment) includes the old Pistol belt and canteen, not much different from the ones carried by WWII soldiers, suspenders, belt-based ammunition pouches, all of which attach with uncomfortable metal clips, and a separate backpack that includes a few attachment points for other ALICE gear. In contrast, the newer MOLLE gear is designed to allow freer movement, easier reconfiguration, ability to stage loads for different fighting conditions, and a higher degree of comfort all around, having soft attachment devices and more adjustability. Guardsmen must often resort to using private funds to improve their own kit by purchasing personal equipment and integrating it with whatever they can get through Army sources.

Maybe this has changed in recent times, but I doubt it.

. . .Your otherwise healthy neighbor with the un-explained headaches and generally any out spoken person who does not support the War/Oil/Big Business machine is going to be the ones testing these things.

As you are a late entry to this conversation I suppose you will not be aware that some of this was already discussed.

First - the tone of the post pretty much makes my earlier point about perspective.

Second - we are discussing a non-lethal technology and if you have read the data on the item that generated this thread it may allow for a more considered opinion on the effects of its use.

Finally - The actual application or method/mode of employ is what is being tested and worked out, not the actual effects. They are understood through a basic non-subjective approach. Kind of like your cell phone, or high tension wires or low power radio waves ( FM 105 ). << Wry Smile as I watch my bobber >>

Good day

This may be of some relevance. Link. The Sunshine Project USA seem to be unable to extract full test data (for the technology in question ) from the military.

. . . This may be of some relevance. Link. The Sunshine Project USA seem to be unable to extract full test data (for the technology in question ) from the military.

I didn't see the technology covered in this discussion mentioned as one that the sunshine group couldn't get full data on. In fact the article makes no mention of any lack of documentation. I could have missed it however.

From the link . . . According to FOIA documents obtained by the U.S. Sunshine Project (http://www.sunshine-project.org), Raytheon's Pulsed Energy Projectiles (PEPs) fire a laser burst of expanding plasma—a collection of charged particles containing equal parts positive ions and electrons.

Later in the article it discusses our topic but as far as I could tell makes no ref to a lack of documentation. Frankly its fine with me to have research regarding defense elements not openly discussed. I have no illusions as to the intent of the military and government to develop technology to handle dissent. I swore an oath when I enlisted to defend the constitution from all threats both foreign and domestic. As a result of that service I may however have a somewhat different concept in the area of trusting my government. As a street Evangelist for a time , I have tasted some of our country's less tolerant government organizations (AKA - time in the klink). That however doesn't dissuade me from my trust in the system because fantastically it is made up of many people with many different views and thats what in my opinion give us reason to woot about the whole thing.

There has been a lot written in the comments under the speculation that it will work!

1. Raytheon is the prime contractor, so it may be another decade before it will ever be fielded. This is after Raytheon has been granted numerous performance waivers from the original operational requirement document.

2. Raytheon will convince the military that the mean to between failure(MTF) hours is so high it won't required any spare parts package. So when it breaks the first time there will be no way to repair it!

3. Production cost over runs will eat up all funding that would have been available for spare parts.

4. Raytheon will convince the military that no maintenance training will be required due to the high MTF.

5. After numerous field failures, Raytheon will convince the military that the solution is Field Support Reps(FSRs) on the battlefield. The FSRs will cost the military $1M per person per year, plus the military will have to provide logistical support, force protection, and armed escorts and helicoper transportation to and from the site where the equipment is located.

In closing, save your worries for at least another 10 years. Due to Al Gore's re-inventing government, this system might make it to the battlefield when my 4 year old Grandson is of military age!

Thanks for your comment, Guest. In fairness, I think we can save the "blame Al Gore" stuff for the battles about whether global warming exists. The Pentagon has been under new (mis)management since January of 2001. That's plenty of time for any political party to screw things up.

That's fair, unfortunately the new/past management wants the Pentagon run as an industry. When the guys in the sand have to worry about equipment shortages due to the "just in time supply", we have a political situation that makes the front page/evening news. Too many civilians trying to be the Generals. The Congress should legislate and the folks in uniform should be allowed to do their job without having to answer to Congress every time there is bad press. In the 90s, tons of spare parts were sold off as scrap because the iron curtain fell and it was believed the new war would be an electronic Intel war. The leadership of both parties didn't pay much attention to the low tech suicide bomber. As for the electronic Intel the courts have proved that can't be done without violating the rights of some civilian in Baghdad. As for global warming, I have to look at the facts. Thermometers were not very accurate 20-100 years ago, which means the database being used is a pretty corrupt comparison. On a 10 year trend line we may have warming, but on a 1000 year trend we may just be experiencing a warm spike. If we had a 1000 years worth of accurate data we could have a better trend to analyze, what we have now may be a natural trend. The main questions are: 1. What happened to the acid rain that was suppose to kill all the trees and take the clear coat off my car? 2. Did the hole in the ozone go away? 3. What kind of fossil fuels were used to end the last ice age?

Good to hear from you, K.Roman. My problem with the Guest's "let's blame Al Gore" argument is threefold: 1) it's partisan, 2) it oversimplifies the problem, and 3) any problem that is partisan enough and simple enough to be caused by one man or one party during 8 years (the Clinton administration) could have been solved by another man (George Bush) or party (the Republicans) during the 6 years (2000 - 2006) that we had a one-party government.

I'm a big fan of the history of World War II. The "greatest generation" of Americans that Tom Brokaw has written about amazes me. Soldiers on the field of battle made the ultimate sacrifice. But don't forget their civilian counterparts who built the Pentagon, developed the atomic bomb, and later founded the CIA.

The failure of this generation of civilian leaders is historic. The CIA missed the fall of the Soviet Union and 9/11. The Vice President, Secretary of Defense and others clamored for a war in search of a a bogeyman (WMD) that didn't exist. They also listened to liars like Chalbi who told tales of how our soldiers would be greeted with candy and roses in the streets.

I don't have an opinion on global warming. It's not that it can't figure it out. Maybe it's just that I don't care that much about the distant future. I'm too worried about those same guys that in the sand that you are.

My comments was not to intended to insult the civilian counterparts that work for the DoD past or present. My concern is with the political posturing used to incite voters. We have Congress men and women/talking heads on Sunday morning that occasionally inflict more harm on the military than the guy with the IED. The mental mind games are starting to get out of hand. Don't these people understand what they say on television is seen by not only the guys in the field via SATCOM, but also the enemy.The poor "guy in the foxhole" is becoming a victim of threatened budget restraints, time tables, and no recognition for all the good work he has accomplished. Plus lets not forget the ultimate sacrifices that were made. We very seldom hear about the schools, fresh water, hospitals, and electric service that has been established. Soldiers are dedicated and follow orders, they don't question those appointed above them. They may not agree, but they comply because they realize most times they as so deep in the foxhole they aren't seeing the big picture. Some soldiers are visionaries and can see well beyond next week, next month, and next year. As I travel through major airports I ask soldiers for their input. 90% say, "don't believe what you hear and see in the news." As for the why we went to war, at this stage it doesn't matter. War is like jumping from an airplane in the dark, once you commit there is no going back. You only hope your chute opens and you don't land on a truck, power line, or connex. You can't change your mind halfway through the jump!