The patent claims are quite interesting. Thanks for the reference
At 02:33 AM 10/3/1999 EDT, Delvieron@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>And here's the summary from the patent for his UV laser taser:
>
><<SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
>
>The principal object of the instant invention is to provide a non-lethal
>immobilizing weapon for use by military or law enforcement personnel.
>
>A second object of this invention is to provide a non-lethal, immobilizing
>weapon which is inherently safe in its operation.
>
So far, so good...
>A third object of this invention is to provide a non-lethal weapon which is
>capable of temporarily immobilizing a target subject without causing pain,
>shock, disorientation, or loss of consciousness.
>
This one seems an impossibility. I have never encountered any electrical stimulation of the human body that did not entail at least one of these effects. The whole idea of a stunner is to STUN...or cause loss of orientation and control.
>A fourth object of this invention is to provide a non-lethal weapon which is
>capable of temporarily immobilizing a target subject without his being aware
>of the cause.
>
Stealthy stun? Why would this be a good thing? Once a person is stunned, who cares if they know what hit them? They are out of the fight.
Unless, there are darker motivations than stopping a suspect - something like knocking someone out and then subjecting them to procedures they would later have no memory of?
Maybe this is how the saucer people are getting their victims :)
>A fifth object is to provide a non-lethal, immobilizing weapon whose range
is
>substantially greater than prior related weapons that use wires or
conductive
>liquid streams.
This is the big problem, as I pointed out in my earlier post. Any stun technology that cannot work over more than a few meters is going to be of very limited use.
>
>A sixth object is to provide a non-lethal, immobilizing weapon which can be
>fired from a remote location without requiring the physical impact of solid
>or liquid matter upon the target.
No projectiles - no reloading, no mess to clean up. Good goal.
>
>A seventh object is to provide a non-lethal, immobilizing weapon which can
be
>directed continuously and swept across an indefinitely large number of
target
>subjects.
>
I have doubts about how much dwell time is needed to successfully put someone out of commission. A slight shock might take the fight out of rioters, however - but it might also just make them angrier..
>An eighth object is to provide a non-lethal, immobilizing weapon which can
>rapidly be fired toward a specific location on a single target subject, or
to
>a specific target subject among many because of the highly directional
nature
>of its current-conducting means.
>
I still have doubts about how much voltage would be required. Even in low pressure gases, it takes kilovolts to light (glow discharge) a tube a meter or two long. 100 meters in air at STP still needs megavolts, not the 600 volts mentioned later in the patent.
>A ninth object is to provide a non-lethal, immobilizing weapon which has a
>significantly longer service life than prior related weapons.
>
I was not aware that the Taser has a limited life. UV lasers can be expected to cost much more and require periodic replacement, although in this kind of service they might last the lifetime of the stunner.
The citations about ionization and electron density may be true, but do not really give a good feel for how much electrical power would be needed to strike the arc and maintain it.
An aside: Directed lightning strikes have been produced using lasers to create an ionized channel. Experiments in Japan have shown that lightning can be drawn to a selected collection point, thereby protecting antenna towers and electrical distribution equipment nearby. So the idea of a UV-produced conduction channel is workable.
Chuck Kuecker