New Real Life Laser-Rifle Cuts Through Metal Like a Blowtorch 143
dryriver writes "We've seen real laser guns before pulling off tricks like starting small fires, or popping black balloons. That's cool, sure, but it's got nothing—on this handheld laser rifle. Developed by TWI this laser-cutter was initially designed for use by robots, but a few recent tweaks including a pistol-grip and a trigger made it into a human-sized rifle. It is designed specifically with nuclear decommission in mind, specifically chopping up huge pieces of metal infrastructure into bite-sized bits that are easily disposed of. And while it's definitely suited for that, it has some short-comings compared typical rifles. That range is pretty low, for instance, and it's not exactly mobile."
of course it isn't mobile (Score:5, Insightful)
WE don't have high energy portable power sources.
We really need to figure out an iron many style reactor to power the next generation of cool toys that we can dream but not really use.
Re:of course it isn't mobile (Score:5, Funny)
WE don't have high energy portable power sources.
We really need to figure out an iron many style reactor to power the next generation of cool toys that we can dream but not really use.
Also, it should be able to operate in frickin' saltwater. In fact, the frickin' buoyancy might even help with the frickin' portability.
Re:of course it isn't mobile (Score:5, Insightful)
Jarvis and the reactor were the two most under-rated bits of tech Tony put together.
The reactor would have ended war.
But Jarvis... a real AI? That's far beyond anything else we've ever built.
"End war"? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reactor would have ended war.
Nonsense. People simply aren't that evolved. If we aren't fighting about energy we'll fight about something even more absurd like skin color or which imaginary invisible man in the sky we should all believe in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wanna start a real fight? Tell her that dress makes her butt look big. That will surely start WWIII.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a very happily married man with a wife whose posterior is quite round, I'm continually confused by the prevalence of jokes about big butts which assign a negative value to that trait. Apparently, many women think most men want to date twigs.
Re:"End war"? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to like the combination of both, which I assure you exists. Maybe you don't get out often enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
orthogonal - 1. of or involving right angles; at right angles. 2. (of variates) statistically independent.
There aren't many right angles in the posteriors I admire, and their size and roundness are anything but independent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll freely admit to the possibility that my dominant visual processing scheme includes automation rejection of unsuitable posteriors :)
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you getting all this nonsense? There are plenty of women walking around with generous posteriors that are also quite round, and a good cross section of those ladies are also pretty toned. Where are you getting the idea that such women can't be independently minded professionals who look damn good in a business suit? Man, you guys really do need to get out more. Maybe you're only looking at college girls or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Like the rare materials needed to build these reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Humans have been fighting with each other since there were enough people to chose sides. Beating each other the head with clubs to win the bigger cave and prettier women. Today the fights are pretty much the same except for much better weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The poorest countries have the highest fertility rates. You really should think about things before you post.
Re: (Score:2)
I said that life threatening scarcity is an issue up to the present day.
I said if and when it happens [meaning the end of scarcity] there is no doubt that it will change [future tense] many things.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to think you have that backwards: fighting over silly things like skin colour and sky fairies is just a cover for fighting over even sillier things like land, fresh water and oil.
If energy is cheap and plentiful, things like clean water and fuel are a lot easier to make.
Arable land is also less of a problem when cheap energy can be used to make fertilizer.
Re: (Score:2)
If energy is cheap and plentiful, things like clean water and fuel are a lot easier to make.
Depends on how clean the energy source is.
Arable land is also less of a problem when cheap energy can be used to make fertilizer.
Arable land is less of a problem though there is a finite amount of it and not all of it can be used no matter how much energy you have. Access to fresh water remains a problem which is somewhat alleviated by energy availability. Excess use of fertilizers are a problem all their own. Petroleum based fertilizers (which most are) are a serious pollutant and no amount of cheap energy will make them less of one. Like fossil fuels used to power equipment they have a b
Re:of course it isn't mobile (Score:5, Funny)
"You're going to need a bigger shark."
Re: (Score:2)
I see where you're going with this.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how laser weapons would change the nature of smallarms combat. I've heard that most of the shots are fired to suppress the enemy so that you can maneuver. With a silent and invisible laser beam, the missed shots might not put the same fear of death into the enemy as the crack and zip of a bullet that almost took your life. If a squad can't intimidate the enemy into not shooting and getting back down into cover, wouldn't they just end up pinned down?
I guess people have already talked death about all
Gun replacement. (Score:1)
You cannot see bullets.
The sound of the laser hitting something (something getting hot very fast will not disintegrate silently) might give the same effect.
Adding a little bit of smoke would give a very big light effect, with the disatvantage of giving your position away.
But as said before, the main problem now is getting enough concentrated enery in a small and safe package.
Re: (Score:3)
Lasers have traditionally been left out of battle as an arm because the way they melt to kill instead of killing. Imagine an enemy who first goes blind then has his skin melt off while his blood starts boiling and if he is lucky, finally death. Now with something like this, that migt happen quicker than it would take for a bullet to kill but that might have been spread over 5, 10 minutes or more
But i think if it would be used that it still wouldn't be a killing device as much as a tool to destroy wh
Re: of course it isn't mobile (Score:5, Informative)
Re: of course it isn't mobile (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't very impressive.
What I find more impressive is that they somehow made a laser rifle. I wonder what does it do: shoot a helical beam like those in some games?
Re: (Score:3)
It emits a circularly polarized beam of light of course!
Re: of course it isn't mobile (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't see any light...
I would advise not to look at it with the other eye then.
Re: (Score:1)
It also has some kind of blower to blow the melting stuff out of the way.
Re: (Score:3)
What would you suggest calling it instead of a "laser rifle"? A "laser musket"? "Smoothbore laser long-gun"?
Re: of course it isn't mobile (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Meltagun.
Re: (Score:2)
What would you suggest calling it instead of a "laser rifle"?
Light sabre?
Seems suitable for getting through the blast doors.
Re: (Score:1)
What would you suggest calling it instead of a "laser rifle"? A "laser musket"? "Smoothbore laser long-gun"?
Well, the manufacturer refers to it as a "Laser cutter" which is what it is, so I'd suggest just calling it that.
It's not a "gun" because it doesn't fire a projectile (it emits a beam).
It's not a firearm because it's not based on explosives.
It's not a rifle because it's not, well, rifled.
Just because something has a grip and a barrel doesn't make it a "gun", a "rifle", etc.
Re: (Score:2)
well there has to be a reason why this is marketed just for nuke waste.
Re: of course it isn't mobile (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Petrogen, impressive indeed. If I heard it correctly, cuts 10" for 10hrs. on two gallons of fuel. Multi-fuel, at that.
Re:of course it isn't mobile (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, how much power does it need to operate? There must be some energy cost per time unit. But I could not figure it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe now that there's a demonstrable military use we will finally see some breakthroughs in the energy storage business. [don't really think it's that bad, but it had to be said]
Re: (Score:2)
what do you call "high energy"? we have 3.5 kW generators that weigh less than 50 lbs. Imagine charging cycle of twenty seconds followed by firing for one second....
Re: (Score:1)
Besides the portable energy source another important thing that needs to be figured out is how to make a sword of it. A rifle is not cool at all. We need swords.
And if possible before Disney churns out any Star Wars Pre-Post-Interquel so that we have something to retaliate with.
handheld rifle (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just in case the Space Patrol thinks this is Star Trek.
Given the visual style similarities [trekmovie.com], I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Design wise, it's like it's 1960s all over again! ;-)
Re:handheld rifle (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, this article should have been titled "New Real Life Laser-Cutter Cuts Through Metal Like a Laser-Cutter"
Pulse Rifle (Score:5, Funny)
"Phased-plasma pulse rifle in 40-watt range".
If only...
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, just what you see pal.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Safety at Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Note to self: do not apply for that kind of work, no matter what the rate.
Re:Safety at Work (Score:5, Interesting)
There are aspects of nuclear decommissioning (if memory serves, some lucky sucker got to deal with the 'eh, we don't know what this is, so we'll just weld it into barrels and leave it for the future' supply stored at Hanford, much of which was virulently radioactive, some, which one is always a surprise, also chemically unpleasant and/or explosive) where you can't get away with the heat, open flames, and vaporized-bits-getting everywhere that you see with lasers, various cutting torches, or high powered saws. For that sort of thing, you have somewhat exotic toys like liquid nitrogen cutting jets. If you are allowed to expose the sample to ridiculous temperatures and open flames, though, why expensive lasers rather than boring (and mature and relatively cheap) cutting torches or thermic lances?
Re: (Score:1)
What is wrong with cutting stuff the way people handle cutting easily work-hardened materials? That generally means submersing it in water and using very normal, cheap, boring tools like angle grinders and sawsalls.
Not everything demands six digit priced tools and years of research to get done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are allowed to expose the sample to ridiculous temperatures and open flames, though, why expensive lasers rather than boring (and mature and relatively cheap) cutting torches or thermic lances?
Because they're freakin' laser beams! It's awesome!
Re: (Score:2)
If you are allowed to expose the sample to ridiculous temperatures and open flames, though, why expensive lasers rather than boring (and mature and relatively cheap) cutting torches or thermic lances?
Because they're freakin' laser beams! It's awesome!
THIS.
and maybe because there's something problematic about delivering and burning an oxidant and fuel in the intended environment.
but mostly, it's just awesome. freakin' laser beams, hand-held, and with a squeeze trigger. I'd stand in line to try that sucker out.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are allowed to expose the sample to ridiculous temperatures and open flames, though, why expensive lasers rather than boring (and mature and relatively cheap) cutting torches or thermic lances?
Possibly because focused light energy can't become radioactive with prolonged contact with radioactive substances, whereas everything else you mentioned... does. Everything you use to handle nuclear waste materials with, itself eventually becomes nuclear waste material. I'm sure slashdot of all places will recognize a recursion problem when it sees one. Even putting a few feet between the torch and the material extends its service life before it has to be thrown in with the other waste... root square law an
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, she is wrong, but your post adds little to the discussion. I suppose the flame would have to be closer, but then a cutting torch is cheaper. Perhaps it has to do with the distance between the operator and the radioactive stuff.
Re:Safety at Work (Score:4, Informative)
The robotic version was made for nuclear decommission. There is no operator in the vicinity in that situation. The video here is just demonstrating the same laser beam technology with a mounted pistol grip for manual use.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the question is in terms of "thowing whatever it is that is being cut up arround" is this better or worse than more traditional soloutions like cutting discs, thermal lances, plasma cutters and so-on.
I don't need metal-cutting (Score:3)
more torch then rifle (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it hard to call this a "laser rifle." Aside fromt he fact that rifles are rifles because of the rifling in the barrel (grooves which cause the bullet to spin), Rifles have a medium to long range. This appears to have only a slightly greater effective range then my Oxy-Fuel torch (which is to say, less then a foot).
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, my friends and I have wondered what the term for rifle-sized lasers will be, since they don't actually have any rifling.
Probably rifle, the same way we still use a 3.5" disk for the save icon and the rotary handset icon for "make a call".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh, we're on to something. Cohesive Beam Carbine -- how about CHarbine? Carbeam?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it hard to call this a "laser rifle." Aside fromt he fact that rifles are rifles because of the rifling in the barrel (grooves which cause the bullet to spin), Rifles have a medium to long range. This appears to have only a slightly greater effective range then my Oxy-Fuel torch (which is to say, less then a foot).
It looks like it'd be simple to move the lens and refocus the beam further away. Then the blower to get the debris out of the way wouldn't work though. And it'd probably also be really hard to keep the thing on target. I can't even hold a little laser pointer without looking like a spaz.
Re: (Score:1)
Wouldn't cause reflection on a real parralel laser (without some focus point) cause bit problem...
Some reflection.... oops there goo all the camera's on the site...
Some reflection ... I hope you were not to attached to that arm of yours...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They'd be pretty stupid to have a columnated beam that went cuts anywhere along it's length, with only attenuation being the limiting factor. I suspect it's deliberately designed with a short focal length so that it's easy to keep objects at the focus of the beam, and to make it more efficient / less dangerous.
Gotta love how pedantic comments like yours get modded up on /.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I was thinking the same thing. I can't really find any reason to rifle the barrel of a laser device.
Finally! (Score:2)
And what is the advantage over a plasma cutter? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only one I can see is that it works from a couple inches away, and doesn't need an electrical ground return connection to the workpiece.
Other than that, a plasma cutter is cheaper, less hazardous, and can cut thicker materials.
Re:And what is the advantage over a plasma cutter? (Score:4, Informative)
Sharks don't use plasma cutters.
Just say'in.
Re: (Score:1)
The "not needing an electrical ground return" thing is huge. Transients may turn on stuff that you really don't want to be turned on.
Cool! (Score:2)
When can I print one?
"laser gun ... for use by robots" (Score:2)
I for one wel--- BZZZZZAP
Yes, but can it cut a tomato? (Score:1)
Introducing the new Ginsu 3000W, it can slice a watermelon AND cut a tomato with grace and ease!*
*not dishwasher safe
Fascinating... (Score:2)
Looks like it uses a gas stream as a laser waveguide... Perhaps a noble gas, like Argon. That would account why there appears to be a force upon the melted debris.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like it uses a gas stream as a laser waveguide... Perhaps a noble gas, like Argon. That would account why there appears to be a force upon the melted debris.
if you listen to the narrator he says exactly what the "gas stream" is. Air. Its just blowing air out to move the slag out of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh... While I am doing programming, I watch videos on mute because it will disrupt the music.
Blowtorch? (Score:2)
A blowtorch can't cut metal. Maybe they mean cutting torches?
Wired or not (Score:1)
I want one!!!
That's an interesting definition of "rifle". (Score:5, Informative)
since nobody else has said it (Score:1)
uhh (Score:1)
Hand aimed (Score:3)
Why not use an atomic hydrogen torch? (Score:2)
Atomic hydrogen torches have been around since the 1940s... here's a GE training film about them [youtube.com]. They produce insane amounts of heat and a reducing atmosphere, perfect for cutting almost anything.
Fukushima (Score:2)
Send in Giant Robot armed with this to neutralize the place
Seriously, about time the stuff there was made sub critical. We can't keep cooling it forever.
Crablogger! (Score:2)
Why do the sparks go in one direction? (Score:2)
Why not chem laser, each shot chems in cartridge? (Score:1)
I've always wondered why a chem laser system isn't used. Each cartridge would contain the chems.. sure, it would need expensive amo, but it's a start.
But as far as for warfare, I think we should go back to single load non-rifled muskets, knives, and wind power on ocean only for war ships. Make war like it should be - face to face and increatable hardships before you even enter battle. Demand absolute best medical care free of charge for the rest of their lives to anyone injured. On societies tab. I'm talkin
More gun worship (Score:1)
Guns are so fucking cool, right? Let's keep salivating over them in all their forms.
Technology assholes.
Re: (Score:1)