Re: Non-lethal protective technologies?

Chuck Kuecker (
Sun, 30 May 1999 21:22:02 -0500

At 06:20 PM 5/29/99 -0700, Eugene Leitl wrote:
>The current design study assumes something mounted on a vehicle, a
>kind of a crowd control thing. A few cases of "accidently" burned
>retina could come handy I can imagine. Of course voltage can also be
>boosted to lethal levels...
> > By the way - where is the return path for the stun beam? If it's through
> > the ground and back into the wielder's body, this could become a very
> > unpopular method of defense.
>One could use twin beams. No need for that, if mounted on a vehicle.

My design was built from two Super Soaker water guns mounted on a common trigger. We powered the 'beams' with 30 kV pulsed DC - similar to a standard stun gun. At the best range I got, I was able to reliably light a neon lamp at three feet before the streams began to lose 'coherency' and break into droplets. Pretty wimpy.

Another outfit - Jaycor - (they're on the web) has patented a 'water cannon' that uses a single stream - that's why I stopped development, aside from the range problem. They also show a person with a GROUNDED SHOE firing a single stream - that would have been educational if the shooter lifted that foot while firing...

I have a feeling this particular device will either turn out to be unworkable, or will be relegated to the same fate as the laser blinding weapons developed a few years back by the military. Or perhaps this can be useful in any totalitarian government's bag of tricks - we know who they are...

Chuck Kuecker