tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23884640.post2970535731779946953..comments2024-03-22T03:13:15.710-07:00Comments on Engineering Ethics Blog: Non-Lethal Weapons, Part II: Taser, Anyone?Kaydeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15055360323969104129noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23884640.post-1214911965780772552007-02-25T17:50:00.000-08:002007-02-25T17:50:00.000-08:00I have no "big ideas" on this topic, merely a coup...I have no "big ideas" on this topic, merely a couple of detail-level observations on your post:<BR/><BR/>"are these devices really safe . . . or are they a step down the road to a police state where torture is routinely carried out by ordinary citizens?"<BR/><BR/>Actually, in a police state isn't the torture carried out by the government or its designated agents? I'm not sure WHAT you call a society in which torture is routinely carried out by ordinary citizens, but I'm pretty sure I don't want to live in it. Tasing the parking attendent because he scratched your car? Tasing your teenaged kids until they tell you who helped buy them that beer they aren't old enough to drink? Not a happy prospect.<BR/><BR/>"I once knew a guy who . . . said he didn't like the way just having [a] gun on him changed his attitude toward people and situations."<BR/><BR/>I don't disagree with your interpretation of WHAT he didn't like, and how it changed him. After all, you knew him and I didn't. So maybe we WAS constantly in combat mode, as you described. But another possibility is that it made him reckless, heedless. "I can do anything I want; if I get in trouble I've got the pistol." In my experience as a small guy who can't fight, big guys who can fight tend to figure they can do anything they want even when they AREN'T armed. So, as you said, it may have been "I'll stop packing heat so I won't always be looking at every situation trying to figure out whether and how to USE the heat." But it might have been "I'll stop packing heat so I'll stop not caring whether I start a fight, since when I'm armed I assume I'd win."<BR/><BR/>MichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23884640.post-75125160560920568702007-02-13T19:35:00.000-08:002007-02-13T19:35:00.000-08:00I thought your readers would be interested in look...I thought your readers would be interested in looking at these energy technologies and EPS's theoretic base for ball lighting. <BR/>and a kinetic weapon with 2000mile/sec velosity. <BR/><BR/>Aneutronic Fusion: Here I am not talking about the big science ITER project taking thirty years, but the several small alternative plasma fusion efforts.<BR/> <BR/>There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems <BR/> <BR/>Vincent Page (a technology officer at GE!!) gave a presentation at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion <BR/> <BR/>He quotes costs and time to development of P-B11 Fusion as tens of million $, and years verses the many decades and ten Billion plus $ projected for ITER and other "Big" science efforts <BR/> <BR/>Here are the links:<BR/> <BR/>http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ <BR/> <BR/>A resent DOD review of EPS technology reads as follows: <BR/> <BR/>"MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's <BR/>chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing <BR/>that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and <BR/>EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their <BR/>work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General <BR/>Motors)." <BR/>and <BR/>"Cost: no cost data available. The complexity of reliable mini-toroid <BR/>formation and acceleration with compact, relatively low-cost equipment <BR/>remains to be determined. Yet the fact that the EPS/MIT STTR work this <BR/>technology has attracted interest from Delphi is very significant, as the <BR/>automotive electronics industry is considered to be extremely demanding of <BR/>functionality per dollar and pound (e.g., mil-spec performance at <BR/>Wal-Mart-class 'commodity' prices)." <BR/> <BR/>EPS, Electron Power Systems seems the strongest and most advanced, and I love the scalability, They propose applications as varied as home power generation@ .ooo5 cents/KWhr, cars, distributed power, airplanes, space propulsion , power storage and kinetic weapons. <BR/> <BR/>It also provides a theoretic base for ball lighting : Ball Lightning Explained as a Stable Plasma Toroid http://www.electronpowersystems.com/Images/Ball%20Lightning%20Explained.pdf<BR/>The theoretics are all there in peer reviewed papers. It does sound to good to be true however with names like MIT, Delphi, STTR grants, NIST grants , etc., popping up all over, I have to keep investigating. <BR/> <BR/>Recent support has also come from one of the top lightning researcher in the world, Joe Dwyer at FIT, when he got his Y-ray and X-ray research published in the May issue of Scientific American, <BR/>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00032CE5-13B7-1264-8F9683414B7FFE9F<BR/> Dwyer's paper: <BR/>http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf<BR/> <BR/>and according to Clint Seward it supports his lightning models and fusion work at Electron Power Systems <BR/> <BR/> <BR/>lightning produces thermonuclear reaction<BR/>This new work By Dr.Kuzhevsky on neutrons in lightning: Russian Science News http://www.informnauka.ru/eng/2005/2005-09-13-5_65_e.htm is also supportive of Electron Power Systems fusion efforts . <BR/> <BR/> <BR/><BR/>Vincent Page (a technology officer at GE!!) gave a presentation at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion (Below Is an excerpt). <BR/> <BR/>"for larger plant sizes<BR/>Time to small-scale Cost to achieve net if the small-scale<BR/>Concept Description net energy production energy concept works:<BR/>Koloc Spherical Plasma: 10 years(time frame), $25 million (cost), 80%(chance of success)<BR/>Field Reversed Configuration: 8 years $75 million 60%<BR/>(Eric Lerner)Plasma Focus: 6 years $18 million 80%"<BR/> <BR/> <BR/>Looks like Eric Lerner is moving down the road!!<BR/> <BR/>U.S., Chilean Labs to Collaborate on Testing Scientific Feasibility of Focus Fusion http://pesn.com/2006/03/18/9600250_LPP_Chilean_Nuclear_Commission/ <BR/> The learning curve is so steep now, and with the resources of the online community, I'm sure we can rally greater support to solve this paramount problem of our time.erichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17087852377037029513noreply@blogger.com