Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pentagon considers ear-blasting anti-hijack gun
New Scientist ^ | 19:00 14 November 01 | Ian Sample

Posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:29 PM PST by aculeus

Weapons that fire high-intensity "sonic bullets" could be used by sky marshals to incapacitate terrorists who try to hijack passenger aircraft. The US Department of Defense is assessing the technology following the attacks on 11 September.

Elwood Norris, chairman of American Technologies in San Diego, California, says the Department of Defense approached him about a device the firm has patented that produces narrow but high-power beams of sound.

Norris says the device could be used on hijackers to inflict pain and possibly disorientation. "They wanted to know, could you use this without any destruction to fuselage walls and windows? And the answer is yes," he says.

A key defence contractor, cruise missile maker General Dynamics of Falls Church, Virginia, is funding development of the system and is helping AT to brief the Army and the Pentagon on its capabilities.

"Directed stick radiator"

Norris's device, which he calls a "directed stick radiator", is encased in a tube made of a polymer composite, around a metre long and four centimetres in diameter. Inside the tube are a series of piezoelectric discs, each of which acts like a small speaker.

Sending an electrical signal to the first disc at the rear end of the tube makes it expand, sending a pressure wave - a sound pulse - along the tube. The pulse soon reaches the second disc, which is "fired" at precisely the right time so that the sound pulse it produces magnifies the pressure wave. By firing each disc in sequence, the amplitude of the sound pulse increases along the length of the tube until it reaches the exit nozzle.

"It shoots out a pulse of sound that's almost like a bullet," says Norris. "It's over 140 decibels for a second or two." Sounds become painful between 120 to 130 decibels.

Norris says the final version is likely to fire audible pulses at a frequency of between six and 10 kilohertz. "It looks right now like this would work over 100 yards," he says.

Knocked down

To test the system, Norris created a cutdown version and turned it on himself. "It almost knocked me on my butt. I wasn't interested in anything for quite a while afterwards," he says. "You could virtually knock a cow on its back with this."

Acoustic weapons could hinder hijackers in two ways, according to a source at QinetiQ, the British defence lab - formerly the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. The main effect is to cause intense pain in the ear drums.

"This would be extremely painful and uncomfortable and you would probably lose your hearing for a few hours," says the source. Acoustic pulses can also disorientate people by shocking the balance system of the inner ear - an effect known as the Tullio phenomenon. But this affects people differently and can't be relied upon.

Nausea and vomiting

Non-lethal acoustic weapons have yet to prove themselves in the field, though. "A lot has been written about their effects from tests in the 60s and 70s, and a lot of that is flatly wrong," says Jürgen Altmann, an expert in these weapons at the University of Dortmund. Inaudible, low-frequency sound waves - infrasound - were claimed to induce nausea and even vomiting. But Altmann says there's no reliable evidence for this.

Using audible frequencies makes more sense, says the QinetiQ specialist. "Infrasound takes too much energy to propagate and you can't steer it, while ultrasound is too easily absorbed and doesn't do much anyway," he says. "The [American Technologies] system would be extremely painful, and you've got a definite risk of causing permanent hearing loss."

Altmann says there may be other problems. "This beam won't be fine enough to hit just one person unless they're very close. It could hit others, or reflect around the aircraft cavity causing temporary hearing loss in other passengers."


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:29 PM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Why not just let travelling law-enforcement officers carry their concealed weapons on any flight they take? We don't need James Bond gimmicks when plain common sense will do.
2 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:34 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
I could see the lawsuits now of people who lose their hearing from one of these things.

What if the hijackers put on those ear muffs or foam ear protectors?

Just let law enforcement and citizens who have passed background checks and training carry weapons concealed. Only way to defeat terrorism is by decentralizing security. I bet the Borg never had one of their cubes hijacked. ;)

3 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:43 PM PST by Frohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus; JMJ333
If we weren't so busy ignoring Israeli experience with terrorism, we might learn that El Al security guards use something ear plugs won't stop.....low powder load bullets that will kill a terrorist, but no penetrate the aircraft hull.
4 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:43 PM PST by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
These people will drag up anything to avoid the obvious: arm officers on the plane with guns. Somehow the thought of lethal force just drives these people bonkers.
5 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:44 PM PST by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
Common sense is an alien concept to the pie-in-the-sky crowd of elitist dumbbells.
6 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:45 PM PST by AF68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

SAY WHAT? COULD YOU REPEAT THAT?
7 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:45 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
There are some kids down the street from me that already have one of those installed in their car.
8 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:46 PM PST by LJLucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
A .44 magnum makes a 170 dB sound pulse and you get some lead along with it.
9 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:47 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Surrender or Die!

"Eh,What? Abdull what's he saying.....Abdull?"

10 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:47 PM PST by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AF68
Common sense is an alien concept to the pie-in-the-sky crowd of elitist dumbbells. --- AF68

Good one.

11 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:48 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
It doesn't sound (pun intended) too far-fetched. I used to dabble quite a bit with air horns and whistles (railroad, marine and industrial), and testing some of them would produce nausea - not mild nausea, either - for about fifteen minutes unless I used both plugs and earmuffs... even that didn't always work.

Ed

12 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:49 PM PST by niteowl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Pentagon considers ear-blasting anti-hijack gun

Weapons that fire high-intensity "sonic bullets" could be used by sky marshals to incapacitate terrorists who try to hijack passenger aircraft. The US Department of Defense is assessing the technology following the attacks on 11 September.

The title is misleading...the pentagon doesnt have anything to do with considering anything with an anti-hijacking capacity.

They are just looking at different types of weapons period.

This is somebody's way of trying to connect the dots in order to make a story connected to Terrorism.

13 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:50 PM PST by VaBthang4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frohickey
What if the hijackers put on those ear muffs or foam ear protectors?

Good one. I had the same thought. Wouldn't work for this device though. The frequencies they are referring to are really unltrasound and not audible. These frequencies pass through the body and reverberate off the air/fluid interfaces. That's why it will turn your ears to mush and feel like a mule kicked you in the chest. Normal sound would dissipate in all directions, but this wave is focused just like a cops radar. Pick your target and rattle his organs.

I WANT ONE

14 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:52 PM PST by WilliamWallace1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Frohickey
What if the hijackers put on those ear muffs or foam ear protectors?

Good one. I had the same thought. Wouldn't work for this device though. The frequencies they are referring to are really unltrasound and not audible. These frequencies pass through the body and reverberate off the air/fluid interfaces. That's why it will turn your ears to mush and feel like a mule kicked you in the chest. Normal sound would dissipate in all directions, but this wave is focused just like a cops radar. Pick your target and rattle his organs.

I WANT ONE

15 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:52 PM PST by WilliamWallace1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: edskid
Assume this gimmick does work. Assume also that the hearing damage to the other passengers isn't permanent. (I don't give a damn if it makes the hijacker puke his guts out and renders him a babbling imbicle who'd make Barbara Boxer or Pat Murray look intelligent). The major problem is how a temporarily deaf pilot is going to communicate with the control tower to set the plane down safely. That is a far bigger risk than having a soft hollow-point .38 penetrate a window or the fuselage.

Guns can be aimed with far more precision than sound waves. Even the anti-gun crowd should be able to figure that out.

16 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:53 PM PST by Rubber Duckie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Rubber Duckie
Why not use a 12 guage shotgun pistol loaded with soft plastic pellets. A terrorist with half of his head blown off is "nutralized" real good. No damage would be sustained by the aircraft and no bystanders would be injured. But this is too simple to try, huh?
17 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:56 PM PST by Uncle George
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Norris's device, which he calls a "directed stick radiator", is encased in a tube made of a polymer composite, around a metre long and four centimetres in diameter.

Okay, where would you put this thing? It wouldn't fit in a carry-on bag and, if the air marshall is carrying that around, it would be pretty obvious to the terrorists who they would need to take out.

Q, this one needs a little work yet before it's ready for 007.

18 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:56 PM PST by eggman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
around a metre long and four centimetres in diameter

Oh, yeah, that sounds like it would be a really useful weapon inside an aircraft cabin.

19 posted on 11/16/2001 1:12:56 PM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
So the hijackers would wear earplugs. This is a silly idea.
20 posted on 11/16/2001 1:13:31 PM PST by ffrancone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson