It's also important to note that it's not only visible light that can harm, with lasers and other devices cable of generating wavelengths outside of the visible spectrum that nonetheless can damage the eye. Where light sources aren't visible, the usual safety instincts may not kick in (which is why it's always important to wear suitable eye protection when dealing with devices such as lasers). Even where instincts do kick in, they're not foolproof. On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:57 AM Lindsay W via luv-talk <luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au> wrote:

On Tuesday, 3 July 2018 12:53:14 PM AEST Anthony via luv-talk wrote: One of the Tom Clancy books features CIA agents downing a Japanese military aircraft by shining a bright light at the pilots. Some people have suggested that a better option for the CIA agents in that scenario would be to use an IR LASER to blind pilots without them even noticing the light (which of course gives the difficult problem of how to line up an invisible LASER with a tiny target at a distance). It's probably best that Tom Clancy used a less effective way of downing an airline given that terrorists have already copied one of his ideas. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

If one has a GOOD rifle (solidly and evenly built, manually operated front locking bolt etc, NOT any automatic weapons) one will have little difficulty in landing successive shots in a 1 cm square at 100 metres BUT both the rifle AND the shooter him/her self needs to be WELL supported. If some one is shooting at you it would be quite safe to say one would NOT be able to hold a bead on someone for ANY length of time. Thats why automatic weapons were invented, they are designed to spray the landscape with fast flying solid objects. Note: It would be safe to say nearly all current armies will have snipers, single soldiers or small groups with some kind manually operated rifle, the US army sniper rifle is a nice weapon using standard 1/2inch ammunition accurate out to well over 1000 metres. For comparison, M24 acceptance requires 0.8 MOA, which translates to reliably hitting about a 2.3cm target at 100m. I dunno how to math that out to 600m range, but I guess it'd be about man-sized, so if your beam is that wide, at that distance, a trained human should be able to keep it on-target. (As opposed to their arm muscles making it wobble too much.) _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk

My information comes from my own experience with fire arms, I regard any self loading rifle as "automatic". My own esperience is of course limited but I have fired a number of .243 calibre rifles, a number of .270's including a self loader, a 400 nitro express, .458 Bruno Magnum, a .457 or .458 Weatherby Magum and I have seen a M107 being fired. Note: One has to be EXTREMELY carefull with these latter 2 weapons as they will put a bullet completely intact through a 70cm hardwood tree even at 200 metres. The problem with getting fire arms REALLY accurate (all bullets landing in 1 cm square at 100metres) is that the mechanism CANNOT be allowed to distort unevenly. In high powered weapons on firing the chamber pressure is so high that it will cause the barrel to "balloon" slightly and if the bolt or the barrel is even slightly unevenly made, it will cause the barrel to deflect off straight. For this reason a group from a weapon such as the M107 it would be good going to land 5 shots in a 5cm circle. A problem with self loading (semi automatic) weapons is its very difficult to build them SIMPLE ,RELIABLE AND make the weapon accurate. With something like the M107 or the Weatherby one would have a reasonably good chance of killing a person at 1000 metres even if they were behind 20mm armour plate., hence the M107's use as a sniper rifle. To achieve this though you DO have take EXTREME care with the aimimg of the weapon. Lindsay ----- Original message ----- From: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck(a)gmail.com> To: Lindsay W <lindz_wolf(a)fastmail.com> Cc: luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au Subject: Re: [luv-talk] How many Lumens can blind you? Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:09:38 +1000 Lindsay W via luv-talk wrote: Ah, apologies, I was working from the example numbers in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcminute article. I see much smaller numbers on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Sniper_Weapon_System#Specifications Dr. Gatling wrote that he created [the Gatling gun] to reduce the size of armies and so reduce the number of deaths by combat and disease, and to show how futile war is.^[7] … It was not a true automatic weapon. The Maxim gun, invented and patented in 1883, was the first true fully automatic weapon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling More a publicity stunt than a serious military contribution, in view of the main financier of the expedition, William Mackinnon, "merely exhibiting" the gun was likely to "prove a great peace-preserver".^[6] … It has been called "the weapon most associated with the British imperial conquest",^[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun I guess you are thinking of suppressing fire doctrine by an integrated squad automatic rifleman, which is still aimed and is still fired in bursts of 5 to 8 rounds, in the last FM I read (to conserve ammo, and maximize time between barrel changes). IIRC the M240 requires a barrel change every 2 to 5 minutes depending on the rate of fire, and the operators between them only carry 2 spare barrels (and you can't safely swap barrels between M240s without a trip to the armourer). That's for air-cooled systems; automatic rifles that are not man-portable can use water cooling (water is heavy!) which can significantly lengthen time between barrel changes. Some man-portable automatic rifles are also capable of indirect fire, but I think this is rarely used in practice. Oh, I've been assuming you mean "automatic" in the sense of "fully automatic" rather than "semi-automatic" (self-loading). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_United_States_Army#S… They field several sniper rifles (inc. "designated marksman" rifles, which is the anglicized term for soviet-style integrated sniper doctrine). I guess you're referring to the .50 BMG cartridge (originally for the M2 Browning, emphatically NOT a sniper rifle), which would therefore be the Barrett M82 (a.k.a. M107). AFAIK its main job is to kill engine blocks, not people. Also note that the above page is for the US Army specifically, not the US armed forces in general. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_US_Navy#Small_Arms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapons_of_the_United_States_Marine_C… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_individual_weapons_of_the_U.S._Armed_… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_individual_weapons_of_the_U.S._Armed_… Can't find one for the USAF.

----- Original message ----- From: "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck(a)gmail.com> To: Lindsay W <lindz_wolf(a)fastmail.com> Cc: luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au Subject: Re: [luv-talk] How many Lumens can blind you? Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:46:07 +1000 Lindsay W wrote: Righto; I was reading it in a different context :-) That will not get around the problem of non symetrical breach locking and Barrel IF anything is non symetrical the whole weapon will distort when its is fired with a consequent loss of accuracy. Absolutely It was a 400 nitro express, used in tiger hunting and it gave the tiger a sporting chance as only an accurate shot would stop a tiger. VERY nice double rifle, made around 1895, the engraving on it was something one had to see to be believed. Kicks like a mule when fired as its quite light in weight, as does any .458 rifle and the M107. Such operations were usually VERY secret to even well after the conflict had ended. I think you will find the choice of weapon would have/still is the choice of the individual concerned, as REALLY accurate shooting is a combination of an exellent weapon and a VERY good operator. It being IMPOSSIBLE to get a poorly constucted rifle (and this would be most of them) to shoot straight. Lindsay

Russell Coker wrote: As a quick comparison, * an infantry rifle (to kill humans) weighs around 2.5kg to 4kg, plus ammo (3 to 6 magazines). * an M72 LAW (to kill light armor) weighs 2.5kg/shot * an 9K38 Igla (to kill helicopters) weighs 11kg + 1kg/shot * a FIM-92 Stinger (to kill helicopters) weighs 15kg + 3kg/shot * an FGM-148 Javelin (to kill heavy armor) weighs 22kg + -6kg/extra shot So if your goal is to kill an helicopter, your target weight is around 10kg for the complete unit. The FGM-148 includes lasers, but it's primarily infrared-guided (heat-seeking). An actual fielded laser for laser-guided is the AN/PED-1 LLDR, but I can't see how heavy that is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_designator#Ground-based The AN/PEQ-2 and AN/PEQ-5 (rifle) and AN/PEQ-6 (pistol) are fielded lasers used for aiming and to designate targets to other infantry. They attach to the existing infantry rifle/pistol, so they probably weigh much less than 1kg. I think they are powered by AA or AAA batteries. Looking at their homepage, I can see actual target designators (as opposed to aiming devices): http://www.insighttechnology.com/l3-products/scarab-ground-laser-target-des… https://www2.l3t.com/alst/products/r_multi_function_laser_systems.htm https://www2.l3t.com/alst/pdfs/datasheets/SCARAB-TILD-A.pdf That says the unit is 12kg. Someone who understands optics better than me can work out whether it's viable for shooting out the eyeballs of enemy pilots. Oh, PS, a lead-acid car battery apparently weighs somewhere between 6kg and 25kg.

given how far off topic this has gone, I refer you to the Casaba Howitzer... http://toughsf.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-nuclear-spear-casaba-howitzer.html On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 00:41, Lindsay W via luv-talk <luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au> wrote: -- Dr Paul van den Bergen

Russell Coker via luv-talk wrote: PS: terrorists don't need Tom Clancy's CIA to give them ideas; the *ACTUAL* CIA will come around to their house and train them, for free. Start from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA#1953_Iranian_coup_d'état and look at all the mentions of "train".

Quoting russell(a)coker.com.au (russell(a)coker.com.au): On the other hand, the writers of the March 2001 pilot episode of 'The Lone Gunmen' did. (This was just a spooky coincidence, but really bothered the writers until that fact was proven.) https://www.scpr.org/news/2015/03/24/50548/the-x-files-mulder-and-scully-wi… Another odd fact: My father, Pan American World Airways Captain Arthur Moen, kept advising his employer and the Federal Aviation Administration in the 1960s that they could put a screeching halt to airline hijackings by simply reinforcing the door to the flight deck. They never did - until the 2000s. (Dad himself never lived to see them taking his advice, having been killed by a defective B-707 in 1968.)

----- Original message ----- From: "Trent W. Buck via luv-talk" <luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au> To: Rick Moen <rick(a)linuxmafia.com> Cc: luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au Subject: Re: [luv-talk] How many Lumens can blind you? Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:04:35 +1000 A couple of points for the discusion....... The keys to a light aircraft (including aircraft such as the Beechcraft Baron) are NOT the security system they are in modern cars all the key switch does is act as a sort of master power switch. The ignition for the engine/engines being controled be separate switchs on the panel, either 2 toggle switchs marked "A" and "B" or a rotary switch marked "Off, A, B, both". So the key switch cannot usually disable the engine/engines. Also given the fact that in ALL aircraft there is a comprehensive relatively easy to access circuit breaker panel covering all systems in the aircraft, it would not be to difficult to "hot wire" any system required for a flight. General aviation aircraft are usually left with full tanks, the reason for this is if the tanks are left empty, it is possible for the moisture in the air in an empty tank to condense into a liquid and cause a possible engine failure in the next flight. While it is required in the initial aircraft inpsection to drain a portion of the fuel from every tank in the aircraft to check for water, experience shows this test is NOT 100% reliable. Lindsay

On Monday, 16 July 2018 4:45:46 PM AEST Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack I only know of one such terrorist attack, and that killed one person other than the terrorist and injured 13 others. It caused a significant amount of property damage, but driving a 4WD through a pedestrian area could kill more. Of course if he had flown his plane into a crowd (superbowl or something) there would have been many more deaths and injuries from the crash and more from the stampede. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

Russell Coker via luv-talk wrote: I started trying to get creative using the fuel tanks for a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel-air_explosive …but you're right, why bother? Kinetic strikes using an ordinary minivan are plenty good enough, and can be done by essentially unskilled labour on an ad-hoc basis, and tie up "the state" installing concrete bollards everywhere (sensible response) or for empire-building within the military-industrial complex (silly response).

On 25/07/2018 4:18 PM, Russell Coker via luv-talk wrote: Until of course someone positions their baby's pram over the top of one of the retractedbollard while waiting for the lights to change. Cue Junior being launched on a ballistic arc in the general direction of the traffic stream. Unfortunately there's no such thing as "Stupid proof". Someone always invents a betterstupid. Regards, Morrie. (Wot! Me cynical?)

Hi Russell. My comment was meant with a great deal of "tongue in cheek". (* Shock horror! You mean that Blazing Saddles wasn't a documentary? O:-)) The extension and retraction times for automatic bollards is quite leisurely to say the least. A quick Google search shows that the idea was considered, but rejected for the Bourke St. Mall, as the duty cycle to allow trams to pass was much too high. Timed with traffic lights would suffer from even higher duty cycles, and because these are either pneumatically, hydraulicly or motor driven, the operating and maintenance costs would be appreciable. It would be a bit like putting in railroad crossings at all of the intersections. Traffic would back up severely at these intersections, just as it does with railroad crossings in peak hour. And also like railroad crossings, there would be a those idiots that would find themselves atop the bollards when the lights changed. And let's face it, we are talking about the same political leaders that tell us that the revised NBN is fit for purpose and future proof? In an old "B.C." comic, Wiley's Dictionary described politics as: "A many handed game in which mud balls are trumps." I can't say I've ever found reason to disagree. Regards, Morrie. * Mel Brooks: Gentlemen. We need to protect our phoney baloney jobs! On 25/07/2018 7:44 PM, Russell Coker wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 7:52:49 AM AEST Lindsay W via luv-talk wrote: LASER light will exactly follow line of sight, including being refracted or reflected. If you see something and line a LASER on what you see then you will hit it. Unlike bullets which are diverted by wind that can't be seen and aren't diverted by optical effects. If you can see the frequence of your LASER then you will see some light reflected back to you from dust. For the distances over which hand-held LASERs are effective this does the job. For longer distances you could have a camera that reads IR (or whatever frequency isn't visible to humans) and has a display in frequencies a human can see. For autonomous weapon systems a beam weapon removes the need to predict the future position of the target and allows just tracking the current position. This should be useful for point-defence anti-missile systems. That said the US navy is apparently currently using rapid fire machine guns for such systems so they probably work. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/