Talk:Active Denial System

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Active Denial System article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Lots of changes

Changed this page a whole lot. Let me know what you think. --Twinxor 04:17, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Torture Device?

"Nonetheless, activist groups protest that the ADS would be a very effective torture device..." Oh, come on. A gun is much more effective. Do they really not want the military to use a weapon because there's a possibility it could be used for torture? That seems a little silly to me. Xinoph 06:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a weapon. Weapons kill people. A gun is not effective for torture because if you shoot someone enough times with a gun, they die. This is different, as not only is it non-lethal but in reality the only thing it could possibly be used for *is* torture. Torture is, by definition, causing excrutiating pain. That is what this device does. Your argument is flawed. That is all. - Netdroid9

You are quite incorrect, I'm afraid. This is a weapon. All dictionaries I've checked, and Wikipedia's own article on weapons have words to the effect that the tool need not necessarily be fatal. A gun can also be used as a torture device. You can cause nonfatal injuries with a gun - either cause the bullet to graze the victim, or fire elsewhere but ensure that medical support is available to repair the damage, if necessary, before firing again. Both this weapon and a gun can be used for torture. Therefore, your argument is both purely expressed and flawed. Angus Lepper 15:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting someone to hurt them tends to leave signs, whereas this is designed to leave no trace at all. A device that causes unbearable pain but leaves no lasting damage would be a perfect untraceable torture device. Fysidiko 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This torture thing does not make sense. Why build a multi-million dollar device when you can torture people with a Zippo lighter? GregorB 18:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should use this for torture. Great idea!

In a nutshell, I can only assume that the activists would prefer combatants to use conventional automatic rifle fire to disperse/kill attackers than a system that will make them run away? As for the torture aspect, their arguments don't hold water, pardon the pun. Anything, including water, can be used as a method of torture so where do you set the limit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.137.100.189 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are all missing the point! Splitting hairs over whether this is a weapon or not is silly. The weapon/torture device will be used by police to control anyone or group deemed to be causing a disturbance....that will mean protestors in your own country. I know that non of you protest anything so this is probably why you argue on such a silly level....but this is real and dangerous...you will never feel the effects of this device directly but you will feel the effects all the same indirectly with your civil liberties gone and your children homeless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.90.228 (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this will keep those hippie bums off the streets, more power to 'em! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.3.118 (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can use a zippo lighter to torture someone. You can use water, air, earth, just about anything. However, it's illegal. The point we're trying to make is that enforcing or investigating torture done by this device is nearly impossible due to the lack of evidence left behind. Yes, it's a fantastic nonlethal weapon, but it could also be the most gruesome and horrible way to die ever. Imagine being put inside a microwave and being cooked. Possibly much worse than being burned at the stake, which is (needless to say) barbaric. In a perfect world, this device would be used only as a nonlethal deterrent against willfull aggressors. However, this is not a perfect world, and there are VERY sick people on this planet. I would rather stick to rubber bullets and tear gas than be responsible for someone getting microwaved to death. Who knows, maybe people explode like potatoes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.51.172 (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They could also use the nuclear reactors in France to fuel WW3. Just because the government makes some new weapon, that is seemingly undetectable (radiation doesn't just go away. especially if your using it as a primary way to torture). Come on, you should be more against riot control then the things they create, if that's what your for. Homeless children and rights haha right. 72.220.125.86 (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some of you people are trying to deny that a weapon designed for pain compliance could be possibly used for torture is ridiculous. Use your fucking brain people. Pain compliance is just a nicer name for torture. Inflicting pain to make somebody do something IS torture. 68.2.90.179 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

68.2.90.179, can you please provide a legal citation for your claim? The reason I ask is because as per the 18 Oct 1907 Hague Convention (IV) on Law of War, it (see Article 23(e)) prohibits items that cause ...unnecessary suffering. This phrasing constitutes an acknowledgement that necessary suffering exists and is what is lawful. As such, as a Wiki Researcher, unless we have a citation that shows that this legal principle doesn't apply here too, upon what NPOV basis do we have to claim to conclude otherwise? -hh (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a legal definition, only a moral definition. Inflicting pain to make somebody do something IS torture. International conventions always leave space for governments to break them, just as in your example. Who decides what constitutes "necessary suffering"? The same government that is willing to inflict it. If a government issues a law tomorrow saying that the earth is flat does not make it so. Inflicting pain to force a person IS torture, plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.179.64.169 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position, but Morality isn't a sufficiently adequate citation to dispute Law on Wikipedia.

Yes, I know that this sounds callous, but I didn't make the rules either. What I see is that Law often tries to accomodate Morality principles into something pragmatically workable within Society. For example, the moral principle to not hurt one another is the basis for laws prohibiting assault ... but by the same token, law permits the use of force when the context is for self-defense. Morally, Society approves of this as a valid exception to the general principle, because Society doesn't believe that one should just lay there and take a one-sided beating. Now here's the important part: this example illustrates that the moral standards of Society are not utterly inflexible, but are informed & adjusted by context.

Getting back to the original point, if a moral standard of Society has evolved from X to Y, its process of codifiation into Law (and to International via Treaty Law) then follows, assuming that it passes successfully through all of the appropriate checks-and-balances and implimentation challenges. This takes time, so until this happens for a particular subject, what has been determined to be "Right" is whatever the currently published Laws/Treaties say on the subject. In this specific case, the disagreement really is no contest: it is between an unreferenced claim and a reliable source citation: nothing personal, but the citation wins, as per WP:RS. -hh (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal?

Wouldn't this be illegal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture act? Specifically Article 1 (And Article 2, which seems to contradict the 'lawfully sanctioned' part of Article 1). - Netdroid9

Torture is illegal, however devices that could be used to torture are not, at least per Article 1 and Article 2. I would unconditionally condemn any use of ADS as a torture device. Its use, as designed, is not for torture, therefore it would not be illegal under these UN Articles. However, that is just my opinion based on reading the Articles though I'm no legal expert. - Taka2007 03:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would violate the ban on torture if used on a single individual for those purposes. Just as a hammer or pliers could be used for torture, the use of the ADS tool for it's intended purpose would not be torture. ADS is designed for and restricted in use to disperse and move crowds from or to an area to reduce threats to other personnel. DeknMike

Effects

Quoted from the article: "Research into whether or not the device will cause long-term health effects has been inconclusive." The nearest citation (Moody Airmen test new, nonlethal method of repelling enemy) offers the following: "Human effects experts have determined there are no long-term health effects associated with ADS". The citation also doesn't substantiate that claim the safety preset and features can be overridden. Rbouchoux (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

The controversy section is obviously non-neutral, but more importantly its tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia and it contains uncited and unverifiable speculation. I agree that a controversy section is needed, but as-is it should be deleted.59.139.70.99 (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main controversy that I have heard has been the conditions of field tests, i.e. subjects were asked to remove metal objects, and take off eye glasses before the tests were conducted. Given the likely situation in which such a system would be employed the controversy as I have heard it is that the military will not advise rioters to remove metal from their bodies. Has anyone seen a source for this?L Hamm 14:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testing has since been conducted (2005/2006) on volunteers with glasses and other metal objects. No reports of local burning, though I wouldn't rule it out in isolated circumstances. Solution would be to remove the metal object. You don't need to be notified to remove something that might be burning you; that is common sense. -Taka2007 13:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it appears that one case of severe burns was reported when the device was set to "the wrong power level" earlier in the article. If the device can be set to a level that will cause permanent damage then is it actually a controversy - the fact that it can be set to do that exists. L Hamm 01:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automobiles were not designed to be lethal, yet they kill people every day. Are we going to ban automobiles because they can potenitally be lethal? The alternative to systems like ADS is lethal means. Let's keep things in perspective. -Taka2007 13:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has a setting to kill people. Hence, it is not a non-lethal device, as it has inbuilt functionality which can be used to kill people. Your argument is redundant as you base it on the assumption that this device is not non-lethal, when in actual fact it is. The fact that an automobiles is irrelevent to the thread of conversation. - Netdroid9

The system is not designed to kill people. Doing so would be circumventing the design. There are far easier ways to kill someone. If I wanted to kill someone, a gun is far more effective. If I want people (e.g. civilians) to stay back from something without harming them, I'd opt for ADS. Tear gas works too, but it has longer term effects, and is not as effective as ADS. - Taka2007 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the R&D version has power controls that can be set to harmful levels doesn't mean the deployment version will. -Toptomcat 13:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deployable version HAS the same power restrictions. Yes, it is conceivable it could be used for torture, however, there are far cheaper ways of torturing people that also leave no marks. The politics surrounding the ADS are blown way out of proportion.

I've seen several of the test videos of this system in action. There is a timer that automatically disables the microwave energy. Repeated test shots have been taken on the same individuals. There have only been isolated cases of minor burns on some test volunteers. To kill someone, you'd have to immobilze them, and then repeatedly shoot them for an extended period of time. I'm not sure how long, as it has never been tested to do so. It would be speculation based on the 1/64 inch penetration it does. If the cell damage from repeated shots could cause a lethal effect, then yes it could be lethal. Yes it could be used to torture people, and I would unconditionally condemn that. - Taka2007 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Videos show troops ordered to act like rioters, then ordered to run away -- which proves nothing either way. Some of you could web-search "homemade microwave weapons" and then think how acceptable it is to have some creep secretly aiming microwaves at sunbathers, or a political zealot using microwaves to cause repeat injuries in zoo animals. Doctors won't diagnose forms of injury the feds announce impossible. A baseball bat is either lethal or non-lethal depending on how you use it, but it's not invisible. Well trained and supervised law enforcement or military personnel should use overt weapons. Sneak weapons encourage crime (or lying claims of damage, potentially huge propaganda, if no one can prove who did what to whom, and no one knows if attacks have stopped yet). Claiming microwave weapons are harmless would haunt us every single time it prevented prosecution of premeditated crimes here at home. There is no disloyalty in pleading that the term "non-lethal" be officially scrapped before it confuses juries. The main article needs a section on strategies to detect microwave weapons. 172.152.134.246 20:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently this quote is in the article: "Primary intentions for development of this system are, however, unclear and a matter of a dispute. Taking into account, that the water cannon have already proven to be an effective though occasionally unsafe riot control tool, development of such an expensive and complicated system for only such a use doesn't seem plausible to some critics." Really? While yes, the water cannon can be a riot control tool, it is by no means just as effective as the Active Denial System. Unless the water cannon has a range of half a kilometer, that is. The most impressive thing about the ADS is that it has the longest range of any non-lethal device currently in use or production. RckmRobot (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metal

The Wired article stated that the microwaves could not penetrate a thin barrier of metal. This is likely why in some tests, subjects were asked to remove glasses and metal from their person. Specifically they mention tin foil, but there are likely things more see-through than tin foil, or stronger, or more flexible that can do the same thing, no? Obviously the US Army can build full suits against an ADS otherwise they couldn't use it nearly as effectively. But my question is, how difficult would it be for anyone to build an ADS proof getup? Do the waves round corners, like light waves do, or will a shield in front of unprotected body parts help? The example in the Wired article is that if one were to cover ones entire body in tin foil, it wouldn't work if there were any small gaps. Tin foil rips, but would any readily available metallic lined fabrics (or plastics) resist the microwaves? 128.101.70.97 17:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Faraday cage, made of metal mesh, will protect you from this device. The rule of thumb for such cages is that the spacing between the wires should be a tenth of the wavelength of the radiation to be stopped; if this device is 95 GHz, then it has a wavelength of 3.16 mm, so a 0.316 mm mesh will stop it (or possibly 0.316 / sqrt(2) = 2.23 mm, not sure). You can readily get that from commercial suppliers - i found a UK website selling it for 28 quid per square metre. It's stronger and more flexible than tinfoil. Plus, a lot more comfortable in hot climates! It's 3 kg per square metre, and you'll want 2-3 square metres of it; heavier than normal clothes, but hardly plate mail (although that would also work ...)! -- Tom Anderson 2007-09-19 2110 +0100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.81.58 (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add "Microwave Weapons" Redirect?

The term "Microwave Weapons" referring specifically to ADS is becoming popularized in the latest media on the subject. ADS would only be one of many possible fits for that term, so perhaps just installing a disambiguation page with links to ADS and masers and "nonlethal force" and such would be the route to take to catch queries on this term. I don't think it merits a full article of its own. (71.233.165.69 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, a disambig page sounds reasonable for that. Twinxor t 04:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

130 degrees F?

I doubt that this would be very effective in real combat, or even against a determined mob. I've taken baths at a temperature of 130 degrees Farenheit (which is a crazy thing to do, by the way -- don't try it) and it's not really that painful. It's uncomfortable: yes. It's a burning sensation: yes. It feels like being on fire: maybe. But if I were fighting for my country or ideology, it wouldn't be nearly painful enough to stop me. Perhaps my experience is not typical. Or perhaps the temperature reached when this weapon is used is actually higher. Just my two cents.... --N Shar 03:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this comparison has to do with the method of heating. In the bath, only the outer layer is exposed. This layer is also exposed to a cooler layer underneath. Your pumping blood actually works as a coolant when exposed to hot water. However, in this case every water molecule within the active range (I guess 3 mm or so since that's the wavelength) is going to be heated up to 55 C. Its far quicker and far more effective in terms of heat transfer. -Hellkyte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.170.212.5 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 April 2007

"...they penetrate the skin to a depth of less than 1/64 of an inch (0.4 mm),[11] which is where the nerve endings are located." 72.220.125.86 (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you melt an entire human being?

In the current write up, the phrase "melt an entire human being" is used in the context of the possibility of a hot spot forming on a target of this weapon. Am I the only person who thinks this sounds both wrong and silly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.16.133.184 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

different degrees of heat are more or less painful depending on the method of delivery. So, while 130 degrees of heat may not feel that bad in a bath. It would be pretty painful in a bath of oil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.52.69 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Microwave tank

Isnt this invention exactly the same as featured on the game 'command and conquer generals zero hour'? Shouldnt this be mentioned under a trivia section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chueyjoo (talk • contribs) 14:25, 25 January 2007

"Goodbye effect"

Footnote #1 gives no explanation of the "goodbye effect" (what is this?) that it accompanies. 86.142.240.102 21:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The goodbye effect is a colloqialism describing how test subjects run away from the beam. DeknMike (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tin-foil hat, anyone?

I won't put this in the article, because it's just something I thought up, and hence original research. However, I don't think it's likely that I'm the first one to think of this, and if there's a better source, then it should go into the article.

It is well known that electromagnetic radiation is reflected by a conducting surface, such as a sheet of metal. (The thickness required is related to the skin depth, which at 95 GHz is microscopically small for any conductor.) So this million-dollar weapon could be defeated by $0.50 worth of aluminum foil and cardboard fashioned to form a set of corner reflectors that send the microwave ray back onto the person operating the ADS. Somebody with a little time and patience could even fashion himself an entire suit of corner reflectors that could be hidden under normal clothing...

--PeR 09:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was confused by this as well. I work with microwaves pretty often, and this radiation is not that different from that found in a microwave oven (hell the effects are damn near the same, just less extreme). In a microwave all you need is a conductive mesh with openings smallers than the wavelength of the radiation. In this case that would be ~3mm or so. You could easily put a mesh like that on.

I just don't understand how that wouldn't block it. What am I (we) missing?

--Hellkyte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.170.212.5 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 April 2007

Some microwave frequenices go straight through faraday cages at the right frequency. I will find my source on it and put it in at a later stage.211.30.132.2 12:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point, to me is that there are layers or barriers for protestors/insurgent factions. I think how this weapon would be used is not against a military force as much as control of a general population. The "pain Ray" is a barrier for those who would protest non-violently and slowly moving closer and by their movement forward are threatening to the controlling force. This ray will weed out the more peaceful elements like an invisible chain fence. Crowds of people pushing against a chain fence in hug numbers are bad press. However, once the "pain ray" has weeded out the week protestors, the ones who have taken the time to "suit up" in tin foil will be a significantly lower percentage and much easier to hit with rubber/bullets or capture and throw in jail. There would be plenty of warnings and levels of pain that will weed out the people that lack conviction and leave the real protestors out in the open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.90.228 (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "The 'pain Ray' is a barrier for those who would protest non-violently..." Why is it that you are assuming that this couldn't (or wouldn't) be used against those *violently* protesting? This device is labeled as an alternative to deadly force, non-violent protesters would certainly never require a deadly force, therefore why would this system be used against non-violent protesters? Are you suggesting that the government would use this device to avoid the "bad press" of "hug numbers"? Your comments seem to be a (not very) thinly-veiled commentary on the oppression of "non-violent protesters" and not on whether metal mesh or foil could defeat the effectiveness of this system.

It is important to find out if mesh or foil could thwart this system, however that point might be moot in reality. If a person in a crowd shows premeditation and determination enough to defeat the system using foil or mesh then injurious or deadly force might be the only way to stop them. Meaning, the system still worked, it has stopped all those who can be stopped without using injurious or deadly force. Supertheman (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is an electromagnetic wave, it will be stopped by a screen of a (good) conductor. Classical theories can be used, such as conductivity and skin depth. Meshes with holes small enough will also be effective. For references, look inte EMC-texts. Mossig (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible ADS CounterMeasures: Space, emergency or thermal type blankets may be better to use for ADS countermeasures than tin foil or mesh. They are durable, very lite and cheap. The reflective material (either gold or silver) can be glued onto thin plywood or cardboard sheets and used as shields to reflect the microwaves. The space blankets can be bought at most outdoor or army surplus stores. Some of these so called space blankets have reinforcing material on one side to increase durability. The ideal countermeasure against the ADS would be a poncho made of this material to reflect the microwaves away from the body. When reversed (shiny side in) the poncho can be used as a countermeasure against airborne infrared surveillance by the police and military. By reflecting the body heat towards the body the infrared signature is reduced. (User talk: ecomcon)

You guys don't get it. While it's a relatively easy system to defeat, a vast majority of people aren't going to suit up in a faraday cage when they go out to riot (for starters they probably won't know if it's going to show up beforehand). Even if they did, then the Police/Govt would just resort to old fashoned Tear Gas and rubber bullets. The ADS isn't supposed to be the end all to riot control, it's just another tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.27.235 (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your tin foil hat suit would need to provide absolute 100% coverage to be effective. From the top of the head to bottom of feet including face and hands. Such an outfit would never be practical to wear in public, would be too costly, and would restrict movement of the user. Its not even worth discussing in terms of the deployment of ADS. Batvette (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your own skin stops the microwaves. Obviously water is a shield. All you'd need is to soak your clothes with water, maybe put a water-bearing jelly/mud/mayonnaise on exposed parts of your skin, wear swim goggles filled with water to protect your eyes, or just look through a plastic bag full of water. 172.58.59.34 (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Physics?

Is there some ref. to the statement in the article that teh radiation excites the water moelcules? (It seems to contradict some basic physics, AFAIK.) Isnt the effect more like classical heat? Mossig 19:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exciting the water molecules makes themmove- that's what creates the heat. As the heat is being created in you, it hurts.

See the article on microwaves for an explanation. In short, the microwaves are at the right wavelength to cause the water molecules in skin to vibrate, heating the skin. It is actual heat, but a very limited depth and area.98.222.195.230 (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exciting a molecule or atom often refers to putting it into a higher energy state, ie. that the electrons changes orbitals. Not the same as heat. I agree with your second conclusion, that it is ordinary heat generated in the nerve endings. Mossig (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The heat is generated by exiciting to a higher rotational state. It is correct terminology, albeit confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.255.242 (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, depending on the frequency, that may not be true either. -168.7.255.242 (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lethality

Any new on whether or not this could be used as a lethal weapon if it had enough power? If there are any sources on this, I think we should include it, as it would be important.211.30.132.2 12:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is lethal, and was designed to be that way from the beginning. Why would our government spend billions developing a weapon that won't kill the enemy? http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C9DA8C22-A71D-4CE2-AC8A-277DAD7E766B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.120.68.39 (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a hybrid war, where the enemy may be interspersed with a civilian population, the point is to clear the crowd from an action area. Traditionally this is done with tear gas, rubber bullets or a line of forces with sticks, tasers, or weapons. Each of these can have lasting negative effects. ADS works to clear a crowd and separate a determined insurgent from bystanding civilians. The effect of using a non-lethal weapon is to avoid negative will from the host population. DeknMike (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ray Gun was designed as a lethal weapon. During my conversation with Ms. Mary Walsh, she advised she was told by Pentagon officials the Ray Gun had been tested on animals. I was very surprised to hear this because Pentagon officials have just confirmed animals are used for testing of weapons such as the Ray Gun at Kirtland AFB. I coordinated the security when the truck loads of animals were being brought in during the middle of the night. Dead animals can’t speak, but if a goat or 500 pound cow can be killed almost instantly with the Ray Gun, then I believe most readers can safely assume a 175 pound man or woman could also die instantly from the intense heat.

The weapon could have been used in early 2003. Before I left for Iraq I had numerous meetings with AFRL/DE engineers and scientists. I knew the capabilities of the weapons. The scientists and their Directors asked me to test and evaluate the DE weapons at Kirtland AFB. I did this immediately after 11 Sep 2001. For several months, the weapons were operational and ready for use in Iraq . "-dave gaubatz. This quotation should be added. 79.216.226.94 (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the suggestion to include this quote and source from Frontpage Magazine.

The basic reason is that it is repeatedly incorrect and results in misleading statements that infer bias.

First, the ADS system that Mr. Gaubatz was claiming that was "operational" in 2003 could only have been the "System 0" prototype, which consisted of a couple of huge CONEX boxes hooked up to electrical grid power...it had no wheels, etc, and would hardly be what any reasonable person would consider to be 'operational' in a country that had no reliable electrical power grid. A photograph of System 0 can be found on page 7 of [1], labeled as "Concept Demonstrator (2000)". The ACTD program to develop the System 1 prototype was not started until 2002 (ibid; see also [2]), and the hardware was not designed/built/integrated/tested to be able to enter into relevant environment trials until 2005. As such, his timeline is off.

Second, Mr. Gaubatz's claim that the program required a Top Secret/SCI, since SCI = Sensitive Compartmented Information, it is most likely that he personally only possessed incomplete information and is thus making invalid claims. For his claims that are incorrect simply illustrates why SCI exists: it works to protect information, by making it harder to connect the dots.

Third, despite claiming 20+ years of Active Duty experience, Mr. Gaubatz misattributes responsibility (blame). Specifically, while a developer can try to "push" a product to the field, the bottom line is that the local commander always still has to agree to be the designated receiving unit, and there factually have been open literature reports of field requests for deployment of ADS (cite: [3] ), of which Mr. Gaubatz failed to acknowledge or reconcile.

Getting back to the original question of lethality, I'm of the opinion that there's probably some way that the Physics could be leveraged in order to make an arguably 'lethal' effect. However, what would still need to be reconciled is why anyone would logically choose to spend millions upon millions of dollars to merely duplicate what an M16's 5.56mm round can do for 25 cents.

-hh (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, what would still need to be reconciled is why anyone would logically choose to spend millions upon millions of dollars to merely duplicate what an M16's 5.56mm round can do for 25 cents.

Relevance? Not seeing it. It seems that the ADS can effectively cause an instant pain effect in hundreds of individuals at a depth of hundreds of yards, a width of dozens of yards. In fact we should assume a thousand or more individuals would fall within its range if sufficiently grouped, and the time difference between effects which would go from "goodbye" to "rest in peace" are in seconds, not minutes. Do a couple of soldiers holding M16's have this firepower at their disposal?

If you have a credible authoritative source that claims that it can instantly fry a thousand people in one second, then let's have the URL cite. The problem is that without a authoritative source, how do we know what's real science and what's simply someone's propoganda? -hh (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wiki, a US infantry squad typically consists of 9 soldiers, configured as two Fireteams of 4 each, plus a squad leader. The fireteam has 3 x M16 rifles plus an M249 machine gun. The M249 fires over 100 rounds in 10 seconds (750+/minute), and the three rifleman have 3 x 30rds in their magazine and can empty them in ~10 seconds too. That sums to 190 rounds in 10 secdonds and at a cost of ~$50. Times two fireteams plus the squad leader, you're at just over 400 rounds in 10 seconds for ~$100, so if you wanted 1000 rounds to mow down a crowd of 1000, it would take ~25 seconds and cost ~$250. FYI, the squad does have enough ammo to do this, since the squad's 'basic load' (default) ammo supply is 2820 rds, which actually means that either one of the 4 man fireteams could have done this solo on their own and still have rounds left over. YMMV, but IMO a squad has more than enough firepower, and is orders of magnitude cheaper, hence Occam's_razor applies. Agree/disagree? -hh (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should assume the intent was in respect of its absolute destructive power by virtue of the various potential effects imagined by its creators. Lethal and Non Lethal. I think it's beyond argument if you could override the controls of this thing or engineer them this way in the first place, so that full operate mode is sustained for a half minute or so, the target's skin would be cooked to the point of separation from the underlying tissue. "Arguably lethal" might be in seconds from blood loss or days due to infection. Arguing that it's not lethal by current design intent is like saying the Corvette ZR-1 can only go 65 mph because that is the speed limit. Batvette (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is that everything is "Arguably lethal" to some degree. For example, your ZR-1 can be crashed into a tree at 65mph (or go run over pedestrians)...so by your logic, this apparently must mean that the ZR-1 could only have been explicitly designed to go crash into trees (or go run over pedestrians). So while its an interesting Conspiracy_theory, how do we achieve our scholarly Wiki goal of actual content verifiability? -hh (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of not seeing how the argument evolved to this point. Are you saying it is a conspiracy theory that this device COULD be lethal, whether accidental or modified to operate outside its original envelope, or that it was intentionally or originally designed to be lethal? If it's the latter I agree, though it could be argued that we could find evidence HPM technology was pursued at some point to kill people. If it's the former I don't think that is a valid position because in essence you'd have to kill someone first to prove it. We had a test subject receive second degree burns when the timer malfunctioned for just a short period, it is illogical to assume if you override the timer and keep it focused on a person it would not give them burns which would be fatal- in fact I see above you acknowledge this, but also argue you don't know why they would want to do this, and go into some fairly complex calculations involving logistical stats of current US forces. All that really doesn't matter and we know the DoD has long researched different ways to achieve military victory. If you would argue that we can't look back and find examples of the DoD researching "death rays" and RF energy projection I'd say that is going to be an easily defeated position. THIS DEVICE may not have been developed with intended lethality, however it IS the result of long term research in related technology that surely was. Fair enough?(I agree the quote from Gaubatz is BS) Batvette (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair enough. My basic point is that the Conspiracy Theory (CT) claim is, as you point out, the latter: based upon a singular(?) serious injury event, the ADS has been accused of somehow being intended to be nothing less than lethal. My counterpoint to this CT claim is that the claim fails becuase holistically, it makes no logical sense:

Financially, a bullet is cheaper;
Technically, there are better RF frequencies to use if the intent is actually to kill;
Operationally, it commonly takes hours/days to die from a 2nd or 3rd degree burn;
Legally, there's Law of War prohibitions on 'unnecessary suffering';
Force structure, the current lethal weapons are smaller/lighter/etc.

Expanding briefly on #2, the technology perspective, if one did want to use RF for a lethal weapon, what must be addressed is the technical reason to go all the way up to the 95GHz frequency of ADS? Afterall, conventional microwave ovens operate at 2.45GHz and their source emitters are small, rugged, dirt cheap, higher energy efficiency (65% vs 50% ^[1]), etc.

Expanding briefly on #3, the Operational perspective, if the lethal mechamism is 'slow', it will have a low degree of operational effectiveness in tactical environments. In a firefight, 30 seconds is an eternity, so a burn that doesn't even show up for a couple of hours (which was what happened in the accident) simply isn't operationally useful.

Logically, the Conspiracy Theory is fighting an uphill battle to convince us that for some reason, the DoD somehow made significantly wrong technology choices, which resulted in the system becoming much bigger, heavier, more expensive, less reliable, less efficient, etc, than it otherwise would need to be if it was merely intended to be lethal. As per Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is that these technology decisions weren’t wrong, because they were necessary since ADS wasn’t ever intended to be lethal. Thus, this claim (eg, the Conspiracy Theorists) that the ADS was intended to be lethal is factually wrong.

Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with your comment of THIS DEVICE not being intended to be lethal, but most likely a byproduct of research in related technologies that surely was. However, this is not unique to this topic, since there's been a lot of 'good' which has come from 'bad' (eg, advancements in medicine which came about due to War, etc). As such, I agree that this observation is true, but not particularly germane to the examination of the merits of a specific technology implementation. -hh (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say that 30 seconds is an eternity in a firefight but for your argument this assumes the party getting his skin burnt off of his body is going to be able to continue firing a weapon while that is happening! No, the second he is in the field of the ADS the firefight stops. You raise an interesting point about the operating frequency. First, why the higher frequency? Would a lower (2.45 you mention) frequency penetrate beyond the skin and have the entire body's mass to heat instead? If so this explains why they would use that higher frequency, but also answer that they couldn't use the lower one for weaponry as the power to heat the whole body instantly would be too great. Secondly why is detection equipment for RF energy in that range so hard to find? Isn't it rather troubling that they want to deploy a weapon you cannot prove is being used? This finally introduces a point you didn't cover, bullets leave ballistics forensic evidence, the ADS if used to kill, will not. Batvette (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I'm covering all your points:

(30 seconds is an eternity)

But we can’t have our cake and eat it too: if we purposefully burn the target (to attempt to be lethal), because of its shallow depth of penetration, the first thing we’ll burn off will be the nerve endings. Thus, the target promptly becomes physiologically incapable of perceiving pain because we destroyed his sensor. Check out Burn and note that 4th and 5th degree burns specifically state reduced pain to no sensation. The operational implications of this are that the target won't be deterred by the pain perception mechanism because even though he’s being burned, he can no longer feel it. As such, he can continue his (hostile) actions until such time that he is physiologically disabled through some other system failure ... which invariably takes more time and more energy.

why the higher frequency? Would a lower (2.45 you mention) frequency penetrate beyond the skin and have the entire body's mass to heat instead?

Yes, but your kill mechanism is thermal heating. For cooking the target, the total amount of energy required doesn't change much (heat is heat), so the difference in depth of penetration isn't particularly germane for this. If anything, it probably leads us to the observation that the greater depth of penetration of lower frequencies would probably make them a better choice to use even before considering their other advantages. This is why I've said that 95GHz is the wrong choice if it was really intended to be lethal.

forensic evidence?

If it were intended to be lethal, the mechanism is heat which produces burns, and burns are obvious. I'd also personally expect that the burns would be present on areas where the target was directly radiated, which would be a departure from conventional fire/chemical burns and thus probably be pretty unique & discernable forensic evidence.

-hh (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To start with I will say you have sufficiently addressed that this weapons system has not been ever engineered for lethality as its original specification. However going back to that first point (and conceding we can only speculate this scenario) I would strongly disagree if your scenario is a target being exposed to an ADS blast being able to maintain his composure in any form to direct fire upon his opponent. Even if there was a momentary "painless window" between the intense pain of initial exposure and the nerve ends being fried off, he's already tossed his equipment and is hopping around already.Batvette (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we had a miscommuniation. I wholeheartedly agree that there's clearly going to be some amount and duration of sensation which can cause the target to be distracted or incapacitated. I think where I introduced some confusion was on the "painless" aspect. This was specific only to the scenario of if the design intent really was to kill. To clarify, the idea of a "painless window" would be after the nerves are fried (not before), and its implications are that the better you make the system for lethality, the faster the energy deposit, which means that the time-until-nerves-are-fried is minimized, which means that the amount of time where one gets a target response (due to pain perception) is also minimized. In the extreme case, the nerves could be killed off before they've had any time to complain, so the target might not even have enough time to throw away his gun, or whatever. More likely, it could be kind of like getting a shot of novicane into a bad tooth...a real fast "Ow!" that's come & gone before you can respond by punching out your Dentist. -hh (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the intent was lethal, then why not use a god-damn tank. Cheaper too (SINCE WE HAVE TONS READY). Stop trying to make something fancy seem like a death ray. Theres a reason that it isn't considered for Iraq yet: doesn't have the utility of weapons we already have. You'll prolly never see this thing get used. 72.220.125.86 (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/Def_Tech/DTP%2065%20Active%20Defense-%20PO%2060032.pdf

bioeffects

In this field, the Pentagone has recently declassified a ten years old report, you could find it on pdf here:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/files/Bioeffects_of_Selected_Non-Lethal_Weapons.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.48.228.84 (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated claims of use

Currently, the opening paragraph ends with:

"ADS has also been present at various public events in the United States. It is unclear if the government has sought any authorization to deploy the weapon at home or did so without public input.[5]"

Note [5] is the following link: [4]

Having listened to the NPR story twice, I can find no substantiation in it of the two sentences above. Unless somebody can find a source, I'll remove the two sentences in a day or two. --Dcfleck (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. --Dcfleck (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Experience

As someone who has been shot by the ADS as a volunteer, along with having spoken with the developers of the system, I would like to make a few comments. I will leave it to others to make changes to the article, as I'm afraid any changes I make will immediately be undone.

First of all, with current testing (I was only shot about a month or so ago), you are not required to remove any metal or electronics from your person. When I was shot I kept on my glasses, ring, and watch, and even left my phone in my pocket with no ill effects from keeping any of them on me when I was shot. Note: I also got shot without the items (to compare) and there was no difference. Oh, and my phone still works perfectly.

The article also mentions that the safeties and settings of ADS can be overridden by the operator, but I don't believe this is actually true. The source cited after that statement^[1] doesn't even mention that "fact," so I honestly do not understand why that is mentioned in the article. There is a good reason that the safties cannot be overridden, and many of the sources mention this: The purpose of the system is a non-lethal detterent with the purpose of discerning intent. Many of the shows ADS has been on, as well as my own personal experience, show that the longest most people can stand to be in the path of the beam is on the order of 2-3 seconds, so the standard setting of 4 seconds is more than long enough to discern if someone intends to be a threat to you or not. And according to rules of engagement, that is generally justification to escalate to a different, potentially lethal, weapon.

In regards to the potential to block the beam with metal, I have a few comments. 1st of all, because the diameter of the beam (which is close to the diameter of the large reflector) covers most of your body, any uncovered parts of your body would be affected, so if there were any open spots (like for your eyes), you would still feel the effects, even if they were limited. Additionally, if you were observed wearing such protection, that is (like above) a very obvious signal of intent.

Seeing as I mentioned eyes in the last section, I'll speak to that part of the article as well. The article currently states that long-term exposure can cause damage to sensitive tissues like the eyes. Unfortunately, with the way the beam works and the fact that the effects are not instant, your body's natural reaction to the beam is to close your eyes, completely protecting them. I say completely because your eyelid is much thicker than the 1/64th of an inch the beam penetrates to.

One of my biggest issues with the article as it currently stands is the citation and extensive quoting from the FrontPage source^[2]. After reading through the whole article and glancing around the site as a whole, I can't help but feel that this is a very biased source. For example, how can a beam that is only capable-through the laws of physics-of penetrating 1/64th of an inch into your skin be lethal? For that matter, how can it "take out (kill) hundreds of enemies within a few seconds?" (As quoted in the source and the article itself). While I don't doubt that there could be a frequency of directed energy beam that could have that capability, the ADS, with its frequency of 95 GHz, does NOT.

If anyone has any questions, please present them. I can't by any means promise I'll have answers to everything, but at the very least I know what I've written about above. RckmRobot (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the life expectancy of a human with 100% of his skin burnt to a crisp is about a New York nanosecond, and if it caused second degree burns in a subject because it "accidentally" was in operate mode too long, it obviously has the capability to do just that, and whether it was one person or a hundred in its path, the microwave energy doesn't care. (my problem with the whle thing is the potential for misuse of the smaller versions being developed, suposedly "hand held", for torture which leave no evidence and cannot even be detected by means available to the public when in use. Also the fact that they will be more willing to use it for ever more trivial reasons) Overall, your first hand experience is valuable input to the discussion but also can't be taken as an assurance against misuse or potential of damage in malfunction.NOTE I removed the Simpsons reference so the user who removed my previous comments can just keep his paws off this one. WTF? Removing comments from talk pages? Batvette (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, my apologies to Batvette for removing his joke (counter-productive) and comment on grounded Faraday Cages. On the latter, the problem was that it is factually contradicted by Wiki's page on Faraday Cages (and please note that this was documented on that revision notice). If you have evidence that the Faraday Cage Wiki page is factually incorrect, then please go provide your citations on that page. After it has been peer reviewed & accepted, we can then restore your prior comment here as there will no longer be a conflict. Fair Enough? -hh (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second, I understand the expressed concerns over potential abuse/torture, but as Wikipedians, we need to decide if this is the ADS - The Technology page, or if it is the ADS - The What-If? Political Controversies page. Based on its current content, it is 80% the former (Technology), so we should either announce that we're changing the page's intended scope, or not change it and then take due diligence to prevent the tail from wagging the dog. Afterall, if the abuse issues are that important, then it clearly merits its own dedicated page, so we should stop debating it here and simply go establish a new page for that all to occur on. -hh (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the apology. On the grounding issue, I did a lot of poking around the net for various references on the subject, (the wiki page I believe gives it a passing reference, and not that I'm trying to win an argument or anything but I don't think wiki itself can be used as a reference) and I elaborate below what I found on the subject- it seems to me the difference in power is key. If a faraday cage is to block a GPS signal from a satellite, the power is inconsequential. The ADS generates substantially more, and this I believe is enough to make where that power goes to an issue. In any case we can just assume saying a faraday cage suit would be effective is complete speculation with no supporting evidence- which makes whether such an imaginary suit needs to be grounded or not to be effective a pointless argument.Batvette (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just power, since a GPS's purpose is to decode data. As such, the GPS needs both an RF signal of sufficient strength, plus be of adequate signal fidelity for digital decyphering - messing up either one results in a successful jambing. In contrast, ADS is simple dumb energy, which must be absorbed or reflected until it has been dissipated: if it is scrambled but still makes it to the target, it still gets decoded as thermal heating (no net change). For countermeasures that aren't an energy absorption mechanism (eg, ungrounded faraday), conservations laws say that the energy can't simply vanish, so the energy must go somewhere: the imaginary faraday suit probably would need to be perfectly gapless (no RF leaks). Probably not impossible, but sounding like it would quickly end up being NASA Spacesuit big, bulky & expensive. -hh (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Faraday cage can have gaps. These gaps must be shorter than the wavelength you are trying to block. For a 95ghz signal, this means the gaps must be shorter than 3.2mm. And the shorter the better. A cage with 0.5mm spacing would be more than enough to block the signal. 1 of 2 things will happen when a radiowave strikes a piece of metal:

It will induce an electric current in the metal (so it acts as an antenna).

It will reflect the radiowave like a mirror.

It's possible for both to happen simultaneously.

However none of the radiowaves will pass through the cage. It forms an absolute shield. Although if they can't get you with this, the police may have reason to conclude that you are attempting to defeat the system because you are trying to approach the officers to assault them. If the officers feel physically threatened by you, they will be fully within their rights to use a very LETHAL weapon, called a gun. Benhut1 (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Torture? Tear gas?

If this is a torture device, then tear gas is a chemical weapon of mass destruction by that same logic. Also, when this device is operated as intended, you can run away -- in fact, that's the whole point. Not so with torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.241.102 (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BUT what if this device (in its portable form of course) was directed at you say in your home. I guess you could leave the building But you wouldn't be aware of what exactly what was happening and so it would be considered torture and extreme harassment. And often torture is used as a tool of interrogation so you would either be restrained or unable to leave a small room so you couldn't simply just "run away".

We all just have to hope that these kinds of weapons are not made available to private defense groups, corporations, companies etc. or you could one day find yourself being a victim of a totally invisible torture instrument at the hands of people you may have pissed off or made enemies of... — Preceding unsigned comment added by -1348- (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America has proven a bucket of water and a towel can be used for torture. If someone has the ability to set one up in your home and use it against you, then they already have positive control of both you and your home. At this point, a bucket of water and a towel are much more economical forms of torture, assuming they don't just knee cap you then start on your fingers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.61.80 (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Plausible for Crowd Control? Who Thinks That?

Taking into account, that the water cannon have already proven to be an effective though occasionally unsafe riot control tool, development of such an expensive and complicated system for only such a use doesn't seem plausible to some critics.

Well, "some critics" didn't seem to do too much critical thinking. A water cannon requires significant amounts water, which cannot necessarily be replenished in all areas, or would require withdrawal from the scene to replenish; the ADS runs on onboard electrical power. A water cannon-equipped vehicle is larger and much heavier and cannot necessarily traverse all roads; the ADS is fitted to a HMMWV and is much lighter. A water cannon leaves lots of water in its wake, which can be detrimental to the surroundings and ongoing situation; once the ADS is off, there is are no stray or splashed waves hanging around (which some apparently consider a nefarious feature of the ADS). Shawn D. (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wearable Faraday cage

The article specifies that wearable Faraday cages are impractical. However, there are already conductive fabrics on the market[5][6], and while expensive, the ones I had in my hands felt quite comfortable. This may also provide some protection against terahertz imaging, the new kind of through-clothes security cameras, once they escape the airports and hit the streets. Opinions, comments? --Shaddack (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether you're talking about active or passive, (airport systems are currently all passive, the millivision style through wall surveillance systems now available for use by homeland security spooks that can allegedly count the change in your pocket as you walk around in the "privacy" of your home use active radar imaging systems) Note "allegedly" concerns the level of resolution, not that they actually have the things. In any case you need a maximum aperature of about 10 times as small as the wavelength in your material, 95ghz is 3 mm, so do the math... tho they are currently experimenting in higher frequencies, so.... (I don't know why we are sitting back taking these intrusions.. too late now- oh yeah, terrorists! where?) to the ADS, you gonna cover your face? hands? Batvette (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further on "faraday cage protection": There have been no tests of any kind that I know of of various types of speculated upon protection from this weapon. There were in fact tests done with people trying to gain protection from barriers and holding things up, which simply did not work. On another subject of grounding faraday cages the issue of the static charge is what must be dealt with and it is often discussed in reference to blocking communication type power levels where the electrical charge is inconsequential to human function. I'd like to see this proven with the power levels of a high power microwave beam DEW, I don't believe this will at all be the case. You're taking a lot of energy and not reflecting it but having it diffused or deflected across the skin of an object for a sustained amount of time, the energy must go somewhere. At the very minimum there must be an inner layer of insulating material and you could not contact any part of the outer skin- good luck wearing that suit! Until it is demonstrated as such we can only factually report that a wearable faraday cage to defend against an ADS type system is pure fantasy.Batvette (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a fact that a Faraday cage works by 2 means.

1: It diverts the signal around the metal cage, inducing currents in the metal material itself, which then dissipate the energy by re-radiating it as more radio waves of the same frequency.

2: It reflects radio waves like a mirror. This is why dish antennas (including the one on the ADS unit) have the reflector made out of metal. If it wouldn't be capable of reflecting the signal, then it would be impossible to build a dish antenna.

I'm not entirely sure, but I believe that 1 and 2 may even be directly linked to one-another in the physics behind it. That is to say that the induced currents in the metal are responsible for generating the signal that is the reflected signal (I'd have to do more reading to be sure, but I believe that is the case).

Whatever the case, a Faraday cage with small enough holes to block a given wavelength WILL PREVENT AN RF-SIGNAL OF THAT WAVELENGTH OR LONGER FROM GETTING INSIDE.

Benhut1 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont dispute that faraday cages work. The idea that you could fashion a wearable one that would be effective against the ADS is virtually impossible. Batvette (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Active Denial System closeup.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Active Denial System closeup.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Active Denial System.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Active Denial System.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added long-term effects section

I rewrote most of the effect section, and added in a new "possible long-term effects" section. I think all of my additions are sourced and I don't think I slaughtered anyone's sacred cows in the process, but please let me know if I inadvertently removed something. I also removed talk section that was only a discussion on the topic, and not about the article at all. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

possible Agricultural uses

Depending on how deep it can penetrate the earth this might be a great way in preparing Agricultural land for planting. Heat the earth to kill off nematodes. Also to help prevent citrus from freezes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.101.133.173 (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Active Denial Denied?

Why not wrap yourself in mylar or aluminum foil? Stops microvaves, might work here, too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.97.199 (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This question is effectively a duplication of part of the Tin Foil Hat discussion section, above; suggest that this section be combined or dropped (your call).

To briefly resummarize, the shorter a wavelength is, the maximum gap size for effective shielding also becomes smaller. Sure, you could make something that's totally sealed up like a NASA space suit...but that includes the visor, so how are you going to be able to see? -hh (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Active Denial System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930011954/http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/2004/ct20041004.html to http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/2004/ct20041004.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Active Denial System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Active Denial System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121212124857/http://rad.usuhs.mil/radhealth/presentations/2006/(Cassata)_Non-Ionizing_Radiation_Branch_of_Navy_Medicine.ppt to http://rad.usuhs.mil/radhealth/presentations/2006/(Cassata)_Non-Ionizing_Radiation_Branch_of_Navy_Medicine.ppt

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713111521/https://www.jnlwp.com/misc/fact_sheets/ADT%20Fact%20Sheet%20Aug%2009%20FINAL.pdf to https://www.jnlwp.com/misc/fact_sheets/ADT%20Fact%20Sheet%20Aug%2009%20FINAL.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Active Denial System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Active Denial System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concepts for use

Propose deleting the entire "Concepts for use" section. It feels borderline promotional for this system (case scenarios, depreciation of other techniques...) whilst bringing little in the terms of encyclopaedic value that would not have been covered in other sections. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted "skin ulcers etc"

I have reverted the recent edit by MaxEnt (talk; @pinging MaxEnt: out of courtesy). I don't find any references to the effects of radiowaves on sufferers from psoriasis at the article on that topic, except for the beneficial effects of UV treatment. It is an intriguing idea, but unless there are references on the topic, I'd say it is WP:OR. --papageno (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/Def_Tech/DTP%2065%20Active%20Defense-%20PO%2060032.pdf

[2] ttp://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123038794

[3] ttp://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C9DA8C22-A71D-4CE2-AC8A-277DAD7E766B

[1]

[1]

[2]

Talk:Active Denial System

Lots of changes

Torture Device?

Illegal?

Effects

Controversy

Metal

Add "Microwave Weapons" Redirect?

130 degrees F?

How can you melt an entire human being?

Microwave tank

"Goodbye effect"

Tin-foil hat, anyone?

Physics?

Lethality

bioeffects

Unsubstantiated claims of use

Personal Experience

Further reading

Removed links

Torture? Tear gas?

Not Plausible for Crowd Control? Who Thinks That?

Wearable Faraday cage

File:Active Denial System closeup.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

File:Active Denial System.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Added long-term effects section

possible Agricultural uses

Active Denial Denied?

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Delete Concepts for use

Reverted "skin ulcers etc"