Directed sonic weapons - 'lasers' 'canons' - feasible?

[eric bazan]

Hi,

This may sound a little strange, but I'm looking for feedback
on this concept. See:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project217.html

Basically this guy is asserting that new types of 'sonic' weapons
are being, and have been developed. Since the 1960's and on. Also,
most people in the public appear to be largely ignorant of them.

He contends that (as an example) types of utlrasonic 'lasers'
and 'canons' have been developed, some of these apparently can
be lethal. The type I'm intereseted in would be used more to
harass and scare people with.

Consider: a device capable of 'firing' a directed ultrasonic (above
human hearing) wave. It would have a range of a few hundred
feet, and would pass through most commonly used building materials
with ease. It would not be heard, but if it happened to strike
a person it would be felt. Like a jolt or a slap, depending on the
energy. Such a device could be used to scare and harass people
without them knowing what's going on. It could be fired from another
building at the target, and would leave no evidence.

For more on what this guy is contending see (warning, verbose):
http://members.aol.com/ultra21753/ultra.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/soundweapon/ultrasonics.htm

Just off the top of my head I can't refute this concept. I'd
appreciate any opinions on this - is it possible (already been
done?) or just bunk? Appreciate your feedback.

Thank, Eric B

[Note, correct email is:boofus {u know what} fractalfreak.com]

[Malcolm Stewart]

"eric bazan" > wrote in message
m...
> Hi,
>
> This may sound a little strange, but I'm looking for feedback
> on this concept. See:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project217.html
>
> Basically this guy is asserting that new types of 'sonic' weapons
> are being, and have been developed. Since the 1960's and on. Also,
> most people in the public appear to be largely ignorant of them.

I conducted some very minor research into ultrasonic beams some decades ago.
Had some success in focusing a ~1m wide beam to a point in a draught free
laboratory, but as soon as we opened a window and hardly perceptible air
currents flowed, we could not detect any significant focus effect. Clearly
many years have passed since my work but the laws of physics haven't changed
and ultrasonic waves are carried by the air, and will be affected by air
currents. If it's possible to measure and adapt for their effects, I
imagine that anything might be possible - viz. adaptive telescope optics.
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

[Ron]

Please accept this as only anecdotal, since I don't have any documentation
to share. A friend was talking about a company in our area (southwest USA)
that is working on a device which is aimed at the outside of a building and
which produces a noise so annoying to the occupants that they would be
forced outside. One intended application is for use by law enforcement in
cases of hostage situations, etc. I'm still not sure that I understand the
principle.
-Ron

> "eric bazan" > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This may sound a little strange, but I'm looking for feedback
> on this concept. See:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project217.html
>
> ... snip ...
>
> Consider: a device capable of 'firing' a directed ultrasonic (above
> human hearing) wave. It would have a range of a few hundred
> feet, and would pass through most commonly used building materials
> with ease. It would not be heard, but if it happened to strike
> a person it would be felt. Like a jolt or a slap, depending on the
> energy. Such a device could be used to scare and harass people
> without them knowing what's going on. It could be fired from another
> building at the target, and would leave no evidence.
>
> For more on what this guy is contending see (warning, verbose):
> http://members.aol.com/ultra21753/ultra.htm
> http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/soundweapon/ultrasonics.htm
>
> Just off the top of my head I can't refute this concept. I'd
> appreciate any opinions on this - is it possible (already been
> done?) or just bunk? Appreciate your feedback.
>
> Thank, Eric B

[Dale Farmer]

eric bazan wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This may sound a little strange, but I'm looking for feedback
> on this concept. See:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project217.html
>
> Basically this guy is asserting that new types of 'sonic' weapons
> are being, and have been developed. Since the 1960's and on. Also,
> most people in the public appear to be largely ignorant of them.
>
> He contends that (as an example) types of utlrasonic 'lasers'
> and 'canons' have been developed, some of these apparently can
> be lethal. The type I'm intereseted in would be used more to
> harass and scare people with.
>
> C

Some acoustic widgets have been experimented with by the
US DoD. I have not heard of any that have actually gone out on
field trials against real live mobs. This was mainly intended for
things like defending of US embassies, guarded by the Marine
Corps, and by army folks looking to give 'peace keepers' a less
lethal alternative than bullets and shrapnel. The prison and police
industry have also been interested in such things.
There were ones that sent out very low frequencies that
stimulated peristalsis in the lower bowl, giving the recipient
the urgent desire to go find a private place to do their
business. There were ones that just found a very irritating
mix of frequencies and broadcast them very loudly, much like a
heavy metal band does at one of their concerts. Then there was
ones that just blasted out sheer volume, at levels that were
calculated to interfere with speech, again much like a heavy
metal band.
THe low frequency ones sortof worked, but the mechanism
to focus the sound was rather large, and pretty much non-portable.
THe other ones had undesirable side effects, i.e. permanent hearing
loss on the targets, and everyone else in the vicinity. ALthough it was

portable, if your definition of portable included a largish truck.
THe research went on to focus on assorted chemical irritants,
like capsacium(sp?) pepper, mace, etc. Those were rather more
effective and controllable. So, no klingon sonic disrupters yet.


--Dale

[eric bazan]

Matt Giwer > wrote in message >...
> eric bazan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
(...)
>
> This sort of thing comes up regularly. It is not magic and in fact it
> is quite feasable except ... whoever is operating it is closer to it
> than the people it is aimed at. So how are they to be protected from
> the noise? Ear plugs can't be the answer as rioters can get ear plugs.
(...)
> To get directionality the projector has to be several wavelengths
> normal to the transmit direction. wavelength = speed of sound /
> frequency. At 1000 ft/sec and 100 Hz a wavelength is 10 feet. We are
> talking a very big sound source. At 10-20 Hz it is too big to consider
> mobile.
>
(...)

Matt,

Sounds like you have some idea what you're talking about.
Perhaps I should have phrased things differently. How about a
controlled or directed shockwave?

Consider: (excerpted from):
http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/soundweapon/ultrasonics.htm

"
Another method of generating a powerful focused infrasonic shock wave is
to create multiple controlled explosions per second in a sealed chamber
and direct the force from the explosions in only one direction. This
method entails injecting an explosive gas into a sealed chamber and then
igniting the gas. Ports leading from the sealed chamber allow the force of
the explosion to be directed in only one direction. Repeating this
controlled explosion many times per second creates the powerful focused
infrasonic wave. The infrasonic wave can only be felt not seen or heard.
The military also has created a weapon that uses this principle. The weapon
is portable and light enough to be carried by only a single person. This
weapon can also single out one person in a crowd and disable or even kill
him without affecting anyone else in the crowd.
"

And, from the emails on this guys site:
http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/soundweapon/response.htm

"
Hey Old Buddy,

How is it going? I am one of the gang from r dot com also known as
www.racism.com. You should check out a post by Joe Z on Alt.mindcontrol
on the acoustic zip gun. It sounds like that could be one of
the causes of your problems. Joe posted the first part I posted the second.

It is powered by extremely powerful compressed air columns in excess
of 3000lb psi. It fills up a pressure chamber, at which point a release
valve or rather a quick release trigger releases the gas. AT this point
it forces it's way into a smaller tube, preferably in a circular motion.
Upon exiting the air is traveling in excess of Mach 1.

The trick here though is the size of the opening. If it is gauged right
(study the tuba) it will not only create a sonic boom but a
'low-frequency sonic boom!! It can't be heard, only felt. In addition
the low frequency shockwave will carry an extremely high impact
force wave along--THROUGH THE WALLS---- The effects on beings are
devastating. These things can be quite small.

This is a very 'dooable no-tech' way of creating probably the most
intense sound wave possible and not spending a zillion dollars.
"

The device I'm considering would have a limited range, but it
would be a line-of-sight weapon. With the unusual propery of
being invisible and inaudible - and being able to pass through
walls, etc. Again, it would be *felt* by anyone in it's path.
As to how tightly focused it could be, I dunno.

This could be used to fake a haunted house, for example (it would
feel like an 'invisible presence' touched/jolted you). It could
also be used to keep someone awake at night, and just generally
be used to harass people. Again, do you think this is possible?

Again, Thanks,

-Eric B

[John]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> Please accept this as only anecdotal, since I don't have any documentation
> to share. A friend was talking about a company in our area (southwest USA)
> that is working on a device which is aimed at the outside of a building
> and
> which produces a noise so annoying to the occupants that they would be
> forced outside.

So what's the name of his band then?

[eric bazan]

Matt Giwer > wrote in message >...
> eric bazan wrote:
> > Matt Giwer > wrote in message >...
> >
> >>eric bazan wrote:
> >>
(BIG SNIP)
(...)
>
> Same for that. The description is so loose it is not clear what it
> being said. Through walls? Ever lived in an apartment? Sounds goes
> through walls. However the walls will absorb their fraction of the
> sound energy. There is a concept of acoustic impedance. The impedance
> of air and a wall are difference. Therefore the wall is effected. If
> you want to break a lamp on the other side of the wall be prepared to
> do serious damage to the wall.
>

Matt,

Agree with your assesment. There's enough information in this
guys posts to be intriguing at a glance, but concept doesn't hold
up well to closer scrutiny. Besides, if such a device was possible,
I doubt it could be kept secret for long, given it's obvious
(military and otherwise) applications.

I don't see how the coherence of any kind of focused sonic
wave could be maintained over any distance, especially while
traveling through different substances. And I don't see how
it could be powerful enough to be felt, but not noticed as
it traveled through the wall to reach its target.

-Eric B

[jakdedert]

Matt Giwer wrote:
> jakdedert wrote:

<Major snippage>

> In the early 80s I had an agreement to join a new company if it could
> get the funding to develop the sorts of things talked about in this
> article. Unfortunately that didn't happen.
>
> This is neither new nor earthshaking. It may be its time has come or
> it may disappear again. The major obstacle is the process is only
> about 1% efficient requiring a very high volume source.

That's been 'kind of' my take: why hasn't it taken off, if it is as
earth-shattering as described. Maybe it will end up as one of those "100
mpg carburetor: supressed by the oil companies" stories that surface from
time to time.

Thank you for your take....

jak

[Stock_Rod]

You are discussing American Technology Corp (ATCO) in California. They make
a number of PARADIGM SHIFTING electronic devices, if you have old ideas
about light and laser comes along, some of those ideas are going to be
wrong. Like laser HSS (Hypersonic sound) is not subject to the inverse
square rule, clear sound is created in a column of sound. Make no mistake,
this is earth shattering, the biggest thing in sound speaker design in 75
years. LRAD is a similar technology for long range hailing and non-lethal
capabilities - 151db burst (tone only, voice is 120db max), 105db at 300
yards, ultra clear communications.

See atcsd.com and atcsd.com/pdf, has some white papers. Worth the read on
this new emerging technology, HSS and LRAD do things that were considered
impossible - shooting sound in 1 direction,

To give you an example HSS can be made to creat a beam of sound that
starts at point A goes a distance and stops, like having a flashhight beam
start at a point, go for a distance and stop, or a bubble/sphere of sound.


Good luck - disclaimer, I own a bunch of the stock.