Talk:Directed-energy weapon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
High traffic

On 20 November 2013, Directed-energy weapon was linked by way of the redirect Herf from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

Suggestion to redesign / rework both pages, perhaps on a wider interpretation[edit]

Considering photons change electron-containing matter on earth in many ways, both naturally and as a result of deliberate human actions, and that even the sun or earth's magnetic core could be considered a directed-energy weapon if you stretch your imagination, is anyone interested in editing my suggested re-organizing of existing material into new pages per below please?

Coherent & Non Coherent Directed Electromagnetic Field Devices

  • corporate, government & other groups use of directed electromagnetic fields
    - for disabling or destroying competitors electronics for reasons of manipulation
    - for forcing or encouraging people to carry out actions or not carry out actions
    - for reasons of education or guidance
    - for reasons of research
    - for use as weapons


  • human or animal targeted electromagnetic assistance
    - for increasing cognitive or physical abilities
    - for forcing or encouraging people to carry out actions or not carry out actions
  • plant or microbe targeted electromagnetic assistance
    - for scientific research into positive or negative effects on all non human / non animal life
  • human or animal targeted electromagnetic weapons
    - for population control creating social or mental disorder to prevent violent social disorder
    - for population control preventing violent social disorder

Xenek (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Associated Press article[edit]

The following story on AP newswire contains some updated information about Directed Energy Weapons. Might be worth editing in. --jaymin 03:09, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I've removed the text of the original article, as it overwhelms this page. The original title was "Pentagon Looks to Directed-Energy Weapons", published Sun Aug 1, 3:39 PM ET, by Michael P. Regan. A simple Google search will bring up plenty of related articles. —HorsePunchKid 07:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is now in Talk:Directed-energy weapon/AP_article. Anthony Appleyard 06:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, what can I say, Wikipedia is ahead of it's reputation. Although A-60 Soviet aircraft made in 70's with a laser gun on board was WAY before american recent 747, it is not even mentioned in the article, it is after articles like this one that clueless american kids are running around yelling that USA is ahead in technology. Also, I do not seem to find any mention of Ranets microwave gun, I will not go to detail about it, here is some material: and a western source too. Also, it would be nice to mention russian Almaz-Antey High Energy Laser Directed Energy Weapon, also can be read about on the page I gave, and yes, it is like Thel, only it is mobile. You know, you can in fact generalize on the issue. I wonder, will someone add the information I mentioned, will someone make this an unbiased article, are people in this encyclopedia wanna-be interested in writing an encyclopedia or in creating an opinion forum? Don't call yourself an encyclopedia until you are one. (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Pavel: the americans have been putting laser on airplanes basically since lasers were invented - yes even back in the 70's. it's only been now however that the technology has matured to the point where a viable battlefield weapon could be made. the ABL is NOT the first american effort to putting such a laser on an airplane. Before you are overly critical of people getting their facts straight you should do so yourself.

BH-209 plasma cannon[edit]

I do not see that the BH-209 is any more likely to be made real, than any other sci-fi plasma gun. Anthony Appleyard 09:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

the 'medusa' doesnt even rise into the 'not likely to be produced int he real world' category. The link cited is fraught with a fundamental lack of understanding of the concepts involved and psuedo science. For example the electrons at the collector end of a klystron are no longer relatavistic. they loose the vast majority of their kinetic energy while radiating RF energy. thats how a klystron WORKS. The RF from the klystron isnt going to 'bunch' the output electron beam. due to the comparativly slow speed of the electrons they would be out of phase with the RF generated in under 1 cycle - while the beam was still in the machine. not to mention little things like if you wanted to do something like this you would use as small a frequency as possible so as to decrease the amount of laser power required to generate this plasma waveguide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Weapon that shoots light at the eyes[edit]

I've seen this device in use on a documentary on non-lethal weapons. It was a prototype I think, but more than rumoured. It emitted a cone of strobing green laser light. Could someone dig up some more info and tidy the article up? --KharBevNor 23:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Problems with lasers/Blooming[edit]

This section needs clarification for various reasons: It neglects to define "blooming." It describes the plasma-forming effect of a powerful laser in the atmosphere (which I assume is the blooming effect) but then describes this as a positive effect for long range projection of the laser, rather than a problem. There is also a sentence noting that a laser is invisible unless something scatters its light, and the relevance of this isn't clear.

  • Continuous wave laser beam propagation through an absorbing medium heats the medium along the path of the beam; the heating of the medium then induces a local change in the index of refraction of the medium which, in turn, causes some effects of spreading, distorting, bending, or defocusing of the beam. These are known as thermal blooming or thermal lensing effects. One important consequence of these effects is to spread the laser beam over a larger area, thereby reducing the intensity incident on a target. [1]
  • High power phenomena such as thermal blooming arising from absorption of beam power in the beam line optics or gas within the beam line, generally causes the beam diameter to increase dramatically. In the case of CO2 laser radiation, thermal blooming can take place if a significant amount of water or organic vapour is present inside the beam path. Such vapour if result from the evaporation of the oil or grease hat are used to lubricate bellow sections of the beamline. [2]
  • Absorption of laser energy causes local heating of the air. The resulting local reduction in both the air density and refractive index causes the laser beam to undergo thermal blooming, i.e., defocusing. This deleterious process can be significantly reduced by choosing an operating wavelength in an atmospheric window where the absorption is low. [3]

Some links about blooming. — Omegatron 03:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

why not just use two lasers focused on the same target? It is certainly doable

Because both lasers bloom and become ineffective. Bobman110 23:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

How would laser light lose power that fast if the laws of physics say otherwise then. The speed of light would be far too fast to have the bloom effect unless your aiming very long distances as this artice implies. ~~unknown~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Seizure-inducing light weapon, "or so the legends say..."[edit]

"There is said to exist a real non-lethal weapon that disorients a target by shooting disorienting lighting patterns at the eyes."

The phrase "there is said to exist" has no place in an encyclopedia. Said by whom, and why has it not been conclusively proven or refuted?

I removed it. If anyone has any citable information on such a device, post it. Otherwise there's no reason for it to be there. Ziiv 15:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Microwave guns[edit]

Microwave guns are NOT masers. Thats like calling a HERF gun a laser. Some companies think they can rename stuff to fit their "new" "cool" product but it needs to stop. Masers a hundred year old technology thats a direct prelude to lasers. The only major difference between masers and lasers, is that masers don't lase but they do have a lasing chamber that can get some limited wave form alignment in the beam. So, with that in mind I removed the "aka" reference from the Microwave section.


Since when was 1954 a hundred years ago? No, non-specific theoretical calculations do not count. Maury (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Move or Delete Pulse rifles[edit]

Pulse rifles as defined in the article can include any weapon the fires in pulses. Who ever wrote that doesn't have a clue about modern small arms. Any pistol, sub machine gun, assault rifle, and/or machine gun would qualify as a "pulse rifle" if it includes a burst fire mode. Normally burst fire modes are three shots per pull of the trigger but this is adjustable on some guns or fully programmable on some very high tech weapons (there is an advanced OICW Landwarrior prototype that supports this and Glock has another "digital" weapon that supports it too). The G11 was released to market in the 80's, so this stuff is nothing "new". Very cool stuff but it does not belong in an article about direct energy weapons because it is not a direct energy weapon of any kind. Please move it or delete it.


I agree. "Pulse rifle" is just a cool-sounding term that's been tossed into various SF movies and novels. It has no real definition that pertains to directed energy weapons. I've deleted the section (and you could have done that yourself; it's allowed  :-) KarlBunker 21:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Relationship to radar[edit]

The claim that Radar may be a by-product of this research seems too strong. There's an early overlap of research, for obvious reasons, but it doesn't appear that failed research by Grindell-Matthews or anyone else substantially led to radar.

There is justification that Watson-Watt and Wilkins suggested to the British Air Ministry the use of radio for aircraft detection, after being asked whether a "death ray" was possible and concluding that it was not feasible (see History of_radar#Robert Watson-Watt).

JDX 05:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement referenced above has no place in the article. Nothing referenced in the article nor found by myself (admittedly online only) has given any indication that the mention of Grindell-Matthews merits placement in this article. As such I am removing it. If any valid sources become available, preferably ones with more veracity than Grindell-Matthews himself, then of course it could be replaced. His refusal to provide proof, to anyone, of his claims, smacks of a con game. At least IMHO. Statement "Radar may be a by-product of this research" being deleted.Radiooperator 18:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ordinary light[edit]

Re: 22 June 2006 text restorations

  • Section ==Ordinary light== restored. If non-laser light is used as a weapon, it is an energy weapon.
Can you provide any citation showing a case where a spotlight (or other ordinary directed light) has been used as a weapon? It would be an interesting and worthwhile section to the article if you could.

KarlBunker 10:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That old legend about the Greek solar lens that could set ships on fire? -Toptomcat 20:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
See "Mythbusters- Achimides Death Ray" (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 2 July 2006 changes
I've partially restored the section on "Ordinary light" removed by User:KarlBunker and added some substantiation because I think it a useful lead in to the following sections. There are references to the claims which aren't included in the article:

JDX 04:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This subsection has been moved to Dazzler (weapon) and other references to dazzlers, etc removed from the article. This is purely to avoid an edit war with KarlBunker who seems to want a rather narrow definition of the topic. -- JDX 08:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I narrowly believe that an article about weapons should confine itself to weapons, and not spin speculation about things that can be used as weapons (which, as you know if you're a Monty Python fan, includes boxes of raspberries). Hopefully you won't run into an equally narrow minded editor over at Dazzler (weapon). --KarlBunker 16:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree and consider (laser and non-laser) dazzlers to be weapons and useful context for the other types. But we're not going to convince each other. The new subsection on "Types" partly addresses my concerns but I'm wondering if it's not better to scrap this entire article and have the general categories listed under Energy weapons and then a separate article for each type: EMP, radio, laser, particle, sonic, mythical, fictional (ie raygun), etc. Does the military have a standard definition for the term? -- JDX 02:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tesla 1[edit]

I added a quote to the Tesla section about his death ray. I think the section needs to be changed; it is not proven that he was just lying. With his brilliance, it is very possible that he built such a machine. However, I do think it needs to be noted that he placed it next to his pigeons and told visitors there was a very dangerous weapon in the crate. He may have been lying to scare others away from his pigeons, but if you read some of the newspaper articles at the time, you will see that he apparently knows what he is talking about. Such specific mentions, as it involving four new inventions, suggests it is real. If he were to make up such a number, it would surely be divisible by 3, and I think most people realize 4 is not divisible by 3. I think the article should be changed, as there is a possibility that he did do as he said.

Tesla 2[edit]

Nikola Tesla (1856 - 1943) was a noted inventor, scientist and electrical engineer. He invented Tesla coils, transformers, alternating current electric generators and was a major early pioneer of radio technology. He was also noted for making some remarkable claims, among them that he had developed what he called a "teleforce" weapon [1] The press called it a "peace ray" or death ray. [2] [3] Components included [4][5]:

  1. An apparatus for producing manifestations of energy in free air instead of in a high vacuum as in the past. This, according to Tesla in 1934, was accomplished.
  2. A mechanism for generating tremendous electrical force. This, according to Tesla, was also accomplished.
  3. A means of intensifying and amplifying the force developed by the second mechanism.
  4. A new method for producing a tremendous electrical repelling force. This would be the projector, or gun, of the invention.

Tesla worked on plans for a directed-energy weapon between the early 1900s till the time of his death. Records of his device indicate that it was based on a narrow stream of atomic clusters of liquid mercury or tungsten accelerated via high voltage (by means akin to his magnifying transformer). Tesla gave the following discription concerning the particle gun's operation:

[The nozzel would] "send concentrated beams of particles through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 200 miles from a defending nation's border and will cause armies to drop dead in their tracks". [6]

The weapon could be used against ground based infantry or for antiaircraft purposes. [7] Tesla tried to interest the US War Department in the device. [8] He also offered this invention to European countries.[9] None of the governments purchased a contract to build the device.

Various theories persist regarding the nature of this device and the whereabouts of Tesla's complete schematics for it. Immediatly after his death, his effects were confiscated and the room's safe opened. The FBI never found the schematics nor any prototype. The so-called "peace ray" constitues a part of some conspiracy theories as a means of destruction.

  1. ^ "Tesla's Ray". Time, July 23, 1934.
  2. ^ "Tesla, at 78, Bares New 'Death-Beam"', New York Times, July 11, 1934.
  3. ^ "Tesla Invents Peace Ray". New York Sun, July 10, 1934.
  4. ^ "Death-Ray Machine Described", New York Sun, July 11, 1934.
  5. ^ "A Machine to End War". Feb. 1935.
  6. ^ "Beam to Kill Army at 200 Miles, Tesla's Claim on 78th Birthday". July 11, 1934.
  7. ^ "'Death Ray' for Planes". New York Times, September 22, 1940.
  8. ^ "Aerial Defense 'Death-Beam' Offered to U. S. By Tesla" July 12, 1940
  9. ^ O'Neill, John J., "Tesla Tries To Prevent World War II". (unpublished Chapter 34 of Prodigal Genius) (PBS) 17:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Tesla was indeed a noted scientist and inventor; one of the greatest of his time. However, he was somewhat mentally unstable later in his life, and lot of utter and complete nonsense has been written about him, often in response to some of his own absurd claims. You seem to have found most, if not all, of that utter and complete nonsense. Putting it into the article as if it was something other than nonsense is an embarrassment to the article and to Wikipedia--KarlBunker 17:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
He was misunderstood later in his life, and some nonsense has been written about him by people unfimiliar with science and his work, often in response to some of his own factual claims. Your uninformed opinion seem to be pushing a POV. Putting in referenced material into the article because it is factual improveds Wikipedia. Your action of pushing a POV and removing information because you do not understand and are in a state of ignorance of the subject is an embarrassment to the article and to Wikipedia. 13:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't completely agree with the above remark by KarlBunker. As he says, there's a lot of nonsense associated with the subject but it's important to document that lore provided that it's clearly stated which claims are baseless and which can actually be attributed to Tesla and which are myths about the man. The section should be reinstated with minor changes if someone will follow up on the cited references and clearly distinguish real achievements from the (publically reported) myths. Arguably, the material could be moved to the article about Tesla, or at least the link from there to this article should be revised if this section is to remain excised. -- JDX 06:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the cited articles can be found @ various places, including (if the site is down [which it does from time to time], check the internet archive). Also Seifer ("Wizard, the Life and Times of Nikola Tesla". ISBN 1-559723-29-7 (HC), ISBN 0-806519-60-6 (SC)) has a lot of information on this that can be useful.
The material cannot be moved to the article about Tesla, as that articles is reaching it's maximum (or a Tesla gun article could be made to address this topic more fully). The link from there to this article should be pointed to the right article.
I will get the Seifer book and add more from that text to the article, asap. 13:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Do note that in Seifer's index, looking up "Death ray" it states "see particle beam weapon".
Also, O'Neill ( "Prodigal Genius". ISBN 0-914732-33-1 ) and Cheney, ( "Tesla: Man Out of Time", ISBN 0-13-906859-7 ) both also cover this information. 14:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC), The fact that you cite sources does not in itself make your additions correct or worthwhile. None of your cited sources are sufficient to justify adding so much material about a directed energy weapon that, in the scientific community, is universally regarded as entirely mythical. My POV is that irrational claims, unsupported by evidence and in apparent defiance of the laws of nature, should not be presented as fact. Present citations of reputable scientists stating a belief that a "tesla gun" is possible, or that document that such a thing has been built and tested, and then you'll have something worthwhile to add to this article. --KarlBunker 14:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of the scientific community is ignorant of Tesla's work.

The Art of Projecting Concentrated Non-Dispersive Energy Through Natura Media is currently in the Nikola Tesla Museum archive in Belgrade.

Rational claims, supported by evidence and in apparent congurance of the laws of nature, should be presented as fact. This is what Tesla did. The facts support ths. Your uninformed opinion to the contrary is not supported by facts or a NPOV posiion. 14:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Add to the above biographers, these papers.

  • Corum, J.F. & K.L. Corum, "Critical Speculations Concerning Tesla's Invention and Application of Single Electrode X-Ray Directed Discharges for Power Processing, Terrestrial Resonances and Particle Beam Weapons," special presentation, Colorado Springs, 1986.
  • Corum, J.F., K.L. Corum, and J.F.X. Daum, "Some Thoughts on Tesla's Death Beam," Corum & Associates, 1991.

K.L. Corum is a PHD. Both J.F. & K.L. Corum have written full mathematical papers on Tesla's Works. 14:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"The vast majority of the scientific community is ignorant of Tesla's work."
I'm afraid that statement shows a lack of understanding about how science works. Your flood of citations are irrelevant, of no use here, and a waste of space. I suggest that you follow up on your idea of creating a "Tesla gun" article, and put your edits in there. This article, apart from the sections that are specifically describing fiction, is about verifiable facts. --KarlBunker 14:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you ignore all the biographers and the material in the Nikola Tesla Museum and the scientific papers? 14:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The citations are relevant, of use here, and add valueable space. This is about verifiable facts. Your POV to the contrary.

This excision of the Tesla claims also weakens the reference from Raygun to that subsection. I've left the link in for now in the hope that the subsection on unverified Tesla claims will soon be largely restored. -- JDX 02:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KarlBunker. I find that the article includes "arguments" for some of Tesla's scientifically unsupported claims stated in the article as fact to be very misleading. As someone unfamiliar with Tesla's work and was just reading a few choice articles about him, it is only until you read these discussion pages that there are refutations for some outlandish claims and "facts" in the articles. Treatment of the more outrageous claims as if they were in league with his many notable contributions, and as if there were not largely a consensus among modern scientists as to their improbability, should be cleaned up. As of this post JDX's suggestion to separate myth from man and fact from fiction has not been completed in a clear manner.
I don't suggest getting rid of the claims and myths, they're fun and interesting. I don't think anyone would like to see that. But I suspect the only reason they remain as is is because the user arguing that those claims be treated on the same level in the article, as others more solidly grounded in reality, seems personally offended by the notion that they could possibly be the mere fantasies of a brilliant mind nearing the end. That Tesla manages to convince people like the this user 70 years after his death is testament to his genius to be sure.
But let's get real here, don't let articles about such an important and interesting figure be hijacked by someone who cites outdated material exclusively and merely rephrases his opponents argument and aims it in the opposite direction. Someone whose argumentative skills never made it out of the schoolyard should not be allowed to impose his will after failing to make a valid point. May I suggest some sort of "disputed claims" header or tag? No one writes about the flat earth theory without including that it is false. The more ludicrous claims made by Tesla may be fact, in that they actually were said by him, but that doesn't mean they're any less ludicrous.

- 07:52, 12 April 2007 User:

    • I also agree with KarlBunker. Writing and reading about Tesla is fun, because is there is something in it for everybody. Some like the scientific achievements, some enjoy his rather farflung ideas of the time when he was going nuts. AUthors also like Tesla. They can depict some of his more useful and intriguing ideas and use them to subsantiate their rather irrelevant claims. However, that is where the trouble starts. If someone (even a PhD) writes about a subject, it does not mean any of his/her claims are in any way scientifically sound. You can easily find papers about anything (and I mean ANYTHING), but only if the claims in these papers have been cross-checked by other members of the scientific community can they be used in further scientific discourse. Therefore, the articles by Corum, Corum and Daum cited above (18 years old and self-published!) cannot be used in a discourse. This is a major problem of Wikipedia. Many contributors believe that something is true because they found an interesting looking paper on it. Not so! Thus, be careful in what you claim to be "uniformed" or "verifiable facts." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramander (talkcontribs) 13:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with lasers[edit]

I don't have any research, but I speculate that another hypothetical problem with lasers surrounds their stealthyness. A gun barrel could me made longer so that the only people who see the "muzzle flash" (if it can really be called that on a laser) are the ones being shot, but the real problem comes from noise and heat. Since all of the noise will probably come from the flash-evaporation of the target it would be very difficult to suppress the noise without using some hypothetical technology.

The heat could also allow some one with infrared vision to see the beem and follow it back to the person who fired it. I also have to wonder if the heat might linger. If the laser heats the air in it's path enough, then the heat dissipation might be slow enough that some one with an infrared camera could see and follow the trail for quite some time after firing the laser weapon.

For those reasons, a Laser would be undesirable as an infantry weapon atleast. A self-propelled laser Counter Artillary unit could still adapt a sort of shoot & scoot tactic.

I didn't add this to the main article because I don't have any research to back it up, and it's just speculation. If the laser is fired for a short pulse, the heat disipation and tracking problem could be resolved. THe noise problem doesn't give away the position of the person firing it, but it does put other enemy units on alert. The affect of the noise could be lessoned by syncronizing the first volly of fire so that all enemy targets are eliminated simultaniously the way artillary batteries sincronize the times their ordinance strikes their targets. That my not be practical with infantry, and all of it is somewhat theoretical. It needs research to confirm if this actually occurs.

Naturally combat weapons already do create a lot of noise, and tracer rounds reveal the shooters position. The real issue is just to what degree this happens.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20 July 2006.

I do not think that noise will be problem with laser weapons in battlefield conditions. In cases of THEL and COIL the problem will be the ammunition, and in every case the excess heat.

All current lasers have a thermal efficiency below 20%. That means over 80% of the energy is released as a waste heat. Imagine that as a IR target in battlefield conditions!

An example: US military is switching from chemical lasers to solid-state ones because of the ammunition problem. (New Scientist - Issue 26 Aug 2006 [4])

With solid-state lasers the energy needed is generated by the vehicle. M1 Abrams has a gas turbine engine that generates about 1000 kW. The gas turbine itself has a thermal efficiency of ~60%, so the engine running generates about 600 kW waste heat.

Now, if the 1000 kW output is used to fire the laser weapon, the general heat output would be 1400 kW (800 kW from the laser + 600 kW from the turbine).

Use that for 15 minutes and you have one pretty hot tank. -- Talamus 15:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

For the Tesla section

This is my first time asking so please forgive me for any social error. It uses to be one of my hobbies to study Tesla's weapon designs. I think I still have a disk of his poorly sanitized papers on particle weapon designs. Would this be a good idea to add? They were based partly on superheated mercury and are internationally illegal to use in war, but the article did not make reference to them. The papers were declared secret, but they only used a black marker type think to cover up the sections. I used a photo shop program and work is plainly legible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Lasers do produce a recoil[edit]

  • Under Lasers, it is stated that "Lasers do not produce recoil." when in fact they do. 2 simple theorems dictate so. The first is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The transmission of the laser MUST have an equal and opposite reaction, or recoil. Also, light carries some momentum, this means that is has some mass and velocity. If you change the velocity of the mass (as you do with a laser) then you apple some force. If energy is conserved, which it is, then there must be some normalizing force that leave the system in equilibrium, recoil. If you look into Heizenbergs Uncertainty Principle with some attention to detail you will see that we cant dircetly measure electron position and momentum because in measuring one (using light) we have to alter the other. Thus light can add momentum to a particle, meaning it must have momentum as well. However, I will grant any nay-sayers that the effect is nearly negligable and that you would never feel the effect with a typical hand held laser, but there is a great difference between typical hand held lasers and laser weaponary. 17:08, 21 December 2006 User:
  • Ahem. Light has no mass (check Photon). It would be pretty devastating if that were different, due to relativity (mass increasing with speed, with lim(infinite) at light speed. Light carries no momentum (which is mass * velocity^2, and as we know, x * 0 is 0). The reason that light can change the momentum of a particle is because light carres energy, not momentum. 15:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Light does have a slight momentum. This, for example, is how pressure of sunlight can push gas and dust out of a comet to make its tail. Anthony Appleyard 05:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • NON-SENSE! sunlight causes volatiles in the comet to sublime and eject gas and dust from the comet. T.Neo (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It amazes me how many people lack an elementary knowledge of modern physics, and yet still post these kinds of comments without bothering to look them up. Anyone who bothers to check a high-school physics book will see that light certainly does carry momentum. Furthermore, radiation pressure and solar wind are responsible for the tail of a comet. If some kind of sublimation pressure were responsible, it would push the gas and dust in all directions equally, rather than producing a distinct tail in one direction (notably, the direction that points directly away from the sun) as actually occurs. Xezlec (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • actually, photons do have mass, but only in the form of relativistic and not rest mass. because of this, they should not have any inertial momentum, and hence should not have any recoil in the ordinary newtonian sense. (recoil assumes that an obect undergoes acceleration, and photons do not undergo acceleration for the simple reason that it is impossible to accelerate anything into lightspeed unless infinite energy is applied - if that were so, then the recoil energy must be infinite as well). Ischaramoochie (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid you are wrong. I will say it again: please look it up before you make these kinds of statements. But since no one seems willing to look it up, I will explain in more detail.
"actually, photons do have mass, but only in the form of relativistic and not rest mass."
Just to make sure we're speaking the same language, I will first point out that the word "mass" in normal modern physics usage means rest mass. Otherwise there would be no reason to distinguish between "mass" and "energy" and it would become hard to talk about anything.
"they should not have any inertial momentum, and hence should not have any recoil in the ordinary newtonian sense."
If you mean "if the universe obeyed Newtonian physics then there would be no recoil" then I agree. If you mean "there is no recoil" then I disagree. Photons have momentum whether you believe it or not. The momentum p of a photon is given by the pretty famous formula p = E/c (that would be one of the first formulas you found if you had done a web search, but I digress). You may be thinking of the Newtonian formula for momentum, p = mv, which, of course, is completely wrong at velocities near the speed of light (that's the whole point of relativity, actually). In relativity, the formula for momentum is dilated by the same gamma factor (1 - v^2/c^2)^(-1/2) as all the other quantities, which obviously approaches infinity as v approaches c, mathematically canceling out the effect of the mass going to zero.
"recoil assumes that an obect undergoes acceleration"
No, recoil is the ACT of a massive object "A" undergoing acceleration (receiving momentum) due to imparting momentum upon another (not necessarily massive) object "B". There is no reason that object "B" has to accelerate if it is massless (in fact, if I recall correctly, massless objects can never accelerate or decelerate at all; they are all frozen at c). It just has to receive momentum (which it does when it comes into existence). Xezlec (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


No phasers in the article? How can that be? --Energman 08:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Belongs in raygun. (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Diode Lasers[edit]

Please, can someone tell me why these aren't mentioned. They don't use mirrors and are much more effective. Also, I don't believe that they worry so much about blooming. Please add something about diode lasers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devgil (talkcontribs) 09:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Power levels of existing devices are fairly low, and duty cycles even lower. See HiPER. Definitely something to watch in the future, though. Maury (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything going for D-E weapons?[edit]

I'm curious to know something.

This article makes a lot of the problems facing the creators of D-E weapons. With all this in mind, it doesn't look like there's any point in developing them . . unless I've missed something. Regular projectile and explosive weapons seem to have all the destructive potential we need. Is there any reason a commander or soldier (as opposed to a scientist with obsessive/compulsive disorder) would want to have a D-E weapon? What can they do that a regular cannon can't do better? Don't answer me here, put it in the article!Johno 07:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The most obvious answer would be far too short to be included in the article. The biggest advantage of energy weapons in general over mass-based weapons in general would be in terms of portability, versatility, and safety. After all, carrying a battery/power pack which could be used to power weapons or other utilities is more convenient that carrying live ammunition. Ischaramoochie (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Unlike projectile weapons or bombs, lasers allow soldiers to engage targets instantly (or at the speed of light if you want to be pedantic), with great accuracy, and often at long range. The military currently believes that lasers may be useful in destroying improvised explosive devices; destroying rockets, artillery, and mortar rounds in-flight; destroying man-portable missiles in-flight; and percision engagement of targets in close proximity to non-combatants. [5] Exophthalmos (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Readability suggestion - dividing into real world and fictional sections[edit]

  • This article would be much easier to digest if it was divided into real world and fictional sections. I understand that this would involve a complete re-write but I think it'd be worth the effort and vastly improve the quality of this article.

-- (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • With modern technology the distinction between real and fictional is becoming indefinite. In this article real and fictional are distinguished enough already. Much of the totally fictional stuff has been put in Raygun and Plasma rifle instead of in here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars part is wrong[edit]

The short part about Star Wars claims that the project was stopped due to political opposition, but the book Voodoo Science, written by one of the participating scientists of the subject, states that the project was scrapped simply because it didn't work.

Any thoughts on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well of course,the real issues are Columb (electrical) repulsion and the magnetic field in space which is even worse near the Earth. A 1 centimeter beam will spread out to a diameter 100s of times wider by the time it has traveled to the target. And of course the beam will curve enough to make aiming extremely difficult.

Those are just the technical issues. The politics of ICBMs makes it very worrying to have a bunch of energy weapons in orbit which could just as well be aimed at satellites and spacecraft. Even the appearance of a good chance to survive a nuclear war could actually encourage one. (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


In this field, the Pentagone has recently declassified a ten years old report, you could find it on pdf here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Particle beams and plasma weapons[edit]

I would argue that particle beam weapons and plasma weapons do not fit into the definition stated at the beginning of the article: "a direct-energy weapon(DEW) is a type of weapon which emits energy in an aimed direction without the means of a projectile." Particle beams and plasma weapons do fire projectiles, although the projectiles are small particles or ions. Perhaps the definition of directed-energy weapons should be broadened for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Engine stopping devices[edit]

Under what category are the new electromagnetic(?) engine stopping devices found? I'm not even sure they are DE weapons or depend on a cable being attached like a Taser, so I don't know in what article to look for them. There is the subsection under Myths about EM radiation stopping car engines. -- (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

claim of the imagination of a Byzantine writer, and time wording[edit]

It currently reads:

A Byzantine writer hundreds of years later is suggested to have imagined this 2200-year-old death ray, which is attributed to Archimedes.

I Googled a bit, but can't find this. First off, why not list the year, instead of just saying hundreds of years later, and that the death machine is 2200 years old today? From what I found, Archimedes work was preserved. I couldn't find where anything was added to his collection of works centuries later. Anyone have a citation for that please? Dream Focus 14:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Silent weapons[edit]

"Laser beams do not generate sound or light that would be detected by human senses when emitted, so the weapon would not betray its user's position when fired."

While this is true about the beam, it isn't always true about either the target (mentioned before), or the weapon itself. Some equipment can make a lot of sound - but the ones for weapons obviously would best be silent at least the source.

A more practical use of lasers is to paint a target for a physical weapon such as a gravity or chemical bomb. JWhiteheadcc (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


Feedback welcomed! Lfstevens (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion[edit]

This article may have issues, but they need to be fixed rather than deleting it. What does everyone else think? JCDenton2052 (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would you consider deletion? The subject is clearly notable. Check Google news for it. [6] It gets ample coverage in the media, various governments calling their systems that. Dream Focus 07:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't going to give feedback, because I have no idea if it will be considered and / or utilized. However, I will give some feedback:
I would consider this article for deletioin, first for some issues at the very begiinning of the aricle. The "Directed-Energy" weapons are being equated with science fiction weapons in the introduction. The way the introduction is written equal weight (if not more) is given to science fiction weapons. So, any serious scientist, student of science, or a general audience member who has a propensity for reading science, will not give this article any serious attention. For me, it is apples and oranges. If I am reading a written work from which I wish to gain knowledge, then Science based information (apples) does not belong with Science Fiction (oranges). Science is real, and science fiction is not. The point is the article mixes two topics, which could be two articles. Furthermore, actually, the aritlce mixes at least three topics. Topic number one is science-based, topic number two is science fiction based, and topic number three is Directed energy Toys, Film props or Animation. Please understand that I am not critiscising science fiction. I have read Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Heinlen, and probably some others. These three are notable writers, and have probably advanced the field of science fiction. Who could ask for more than that?
The section entitled "Operational advantages", first of all is not referenced and sourced. Hence this is syntheisis WP:SYN and WP:OR. And I am not just talking about Wikipedia policy. The tenor of this whole section is like someone came up with some sort of logical conclusions about directed energy weapons, and lasers. I recognize some of the statements as true, but do they really relate to directed energy weapons?
The next section ("Problems and considerations") comes across as a recipe, or a section of a how to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Also this section does not appear to be referenced. The one reference in this section is linked to website with content that is mostly supposition WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore, this one reference may not qualify as a reliabel source WP:RS. Also the critique of this section appears to apply to the sub-sections, as well.
The article after these sections will take more time to analyze. Having stated the above, the two sections after the introduction really should be thrown out because these are not sourced with references. Once references are applied, and the text is adapated to the references (not the other way around) then these sections should be restored. In any case they could be removed to be in agreement with policy and guidelines. However, personally, I don't want to make this about policy and guidelines. I would rather make this about having at least two decent articles. In other words, split the science, and science fiction. Keep the apples with apples and the oranges with oranges. And I said, it is possible to create a third article (grapes? or pears?). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Historical accounts of Archimedes should remain though, MIT students actually proving you could burn a boat, as have others, by using that method. The crap about Zeus shooting lightning bolts as a direct energy weapon I removed, since that has no place here by way of common sense. Mentioning various attempts in the past to make weapons, like how the Japanese in World War 2 focused on using microwaves for a death ray, could be added, and existing such things better organized. I'm going to do some work on it now. Thanks for the input. Dream Focus 22:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I must comment on the problems and consideration section that it is possible that there are literature out there about the blooming effect and such. It would be very reasonable that physics theories can estimate what will happen. The only problem, as in all wikipedia articles, is the RS and V. For the current source, I too, must say that it sounds nothing like RS and more importantly, even IF it is RS, it does not contain what it was sourced for.(search contains no word of blooming, phased, array, not even angle could be found there.) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 16:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Deletion? No, not at all, but the article is too multi-faceted and perhaps could even be split, "directed energy weapons" in the military project catagory, and "directed energy weapons in science fiction" in the science fiction catagory, they are clearly two distinct issues. There also needs to be a line drawn between stating what someone theorizes a weapon COULD do if ever built or powerful enough, and what weapons either experimental or actually deployed have been proven to actually do.
As it is this article isn't up to wiki standards, that's for sure. Batvette (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Article split proposal[edit]

Where do you see any science fiction or popular culture entries in the current article? Other than the lead section briefly mentioning such things are common in science fiction, there is nothing else listed there now. Dream Focus 04:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
oops ! ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
See, that's the reason for proposals :>). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Obviously I jumped the gun. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Electric beam in a vacuum[edit]

The paragraph von "Electric beam in a vacuum" is complete nonsense and/or redundant. There is no conventional electrical current in a vacuum (no conductor, no current); The only thing similar to a current would be a beam of free charged particles (electrons, protons or other ions), but this is already covered by the "particle beams". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we use these again?[edit]

Sorry for this.

I realize that talk pages aren't for general disscusion of the subject, but this sort of pretains to the artcile.

It seems out of date to me. The main issues mentioned as to why we don't use them a lot or hy we don't have general DE weapons are more or less not an issue.

Today, one can modify a normal laser pointer to melt through various materials, and that is around the size of a pencil. To me, somthing the size of an rifle would have much more room to store power supply, and would be able to eaidly inflict burn wounds.

Even this: shows that one can make a working, portable, and lightweight energy weapon. (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, this isn't a forum for general discussion on the topic. siafu (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The vid says it a megawatt pusle laser gun, more like a modified 1000 milliwatt (1 watt) laser pointer, not an actual energy base weapon. Space Commander Plasma (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


Are there any treaties that ban energy base weaponary? Space Commander Plasma (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Germany's DEW during World War II[edit]

Content is highly douptful, only source only states facts contrary to content. Source only contains information about a never-in-use research facility, and the method of scientist to get fundings for their projects by let it look like important work that could help win the war (already after the USA joined the war and the Nazis lost more and more battles). Only mentoined DEW in the article is a prototype or copy of the prototype of the norwegian scientist Rolf Wideröe, who wanted to save his brother. Due to text structure and grammar, the author seems to connect this case to others where a man tried to get attention from German officials to gain something of interest (in this case the life of the brother), but without actual scientific foundation. Additionally, the text states, that the device should have been put there under tests, but never was due to the invasion.

In brief: Only source describes a desperate war-monger, who turns to science for a wonder weapon, that were proclaimed as those by the scientist, but without any realistic foundation and only for the purpose of achieving personal goals (as more money for other research projects or saving lifes of relatives and co-workers).

Requesting deletion of that part or correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggest merger[edit]

It has been suggested that the Electromagnetic weapon article be merged into this article, at the AfD discussion for the Electromagnetic weapon article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electromagnetic weapon. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

+1 --ReagentX (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Against merge As people pointed out in the AFD, there is too much valid information that wouldn't fit over there. Also, it ended in a keep. Merging it would be the same as deleting the article most said should exist on its own. Dream Focus 23:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • For merge It looks like most of the content here is not properly sourced. I'd suggest moving it, and either finding sources for the content or removing it from the merge. The subject matter is almost exactly the same. Damonthesis (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Against Simple reason, EM weapons are not necessarily directed. In fact, the real life EMP is a good example. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 15:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"The dual noble gas of a masing medium which is nonpolar."[edit]

What's that supposed to mean? -- (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

unsupported claims[edit]

Seems a lot of material has been posted with references that either don't work or don't say what they claim. Can we keep it real here? Batvette (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that several other editors have removed this "dubious content" and it keeps being reintroduced for some unexplained reason. Please quote the claims directly with wording found in the links, and provide the links so we can see this. The links as I checked were either broken or had nothing close to what was claimed. Do not assume other editors are too stupid to click links and check them. Thank you. Batvette (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of information by potentially vested interests/Disinfo[edit]

RE: Batvette (and some others)

Thanks for declaring your US military web background on your page. Clearly there are a lot of military people getting involved in this article. Where their content is objective I would welcome this. Where it is military disinfo or disregard for others content it would obviously not be welcome.

This article needs a lot of disinformation removed.

That which I have submitted doesn't come into that category.

The sections which i have reinstated previously to our actions were different ones where people have removed them without valid reason so your point doesn't apply.

Half of my links that you say were broken were still active, other files were moved. With regard to the ones where the website admin had shifted them (Official US and Canadian military or peace corp sites) please attempt to replace the link by locating the document specified rather than simply removing data.

This page is extremely convoluted with information of limited relevance already and quotations would make it worse. It needs to be more succinct.

Please look at the specific sections of the references and dispute them here first before just removing the work provided. You should read the content I have submitted and be specific about what you are disputing.

If you want to cut the crap out of this article I suggest you start from the bottom up.

I am going to proceed to reinstate the information and update the broken links.

With regards to moving this article forward, it needs to make references to DEWs being used as a form of Electronic Attack which comes under Electronic Warfare.

It should also move to reference military satellite ('Milsat') usage as Directed Energy Weapons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radicalmix66 (talkcontribs) 19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all it is highly inappropriate to make issues of my "Military background" (I spent 4 years in the Navy and was discharged 30 years ago! What do you mean "military WEB background?) and then go on to suggest I have some form of POV agenda, or imply you have some say so over whether their edits are "objective" or not. If you're looking to establish editorial control over this article and wish to fight about it, you're going nowhere with such personal attacks and false accusations about the intents of other editors. (In fact it suggests a POV agenda of your own, in light of the unsupported edits)
Secondly you want other editors to fix broken links and find references that have expired or were removed, for material you enter? Surely you are joking. I'm going to do as I have done and remove any material that lacks supporting text in the references as provided. Nobody is suggesting you enter direct quotations in the article, but the references need to support the claims- for instance the reference you used to back up the claim that said weapons were available for "decades" didn't say that at all- it was a contractor/vendor saying he had worked in development for decades.
If it doesn't say it in the reference, or the reference is missing, don't post it. I think that's pretty simple. Batvette (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't provide that text on 'decades', it predates my input. I will take time to read that shortly.

But you have removed all of my information which is referenced and you have not contested one fact I've made. That is why I question such vested interests. That and the fact that Deception (ie. Disinformation) is a key component of Info Ops carried out by the military, which includes the US military (Info Ops being amongst the information which you keep deleting despite it's explicit references to the technology in he sections I have cited).

Your colours are shown by your actions, not your history. Radicalmix66 (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok I have now reworded the text (which was provided by someone else) to match the reference they gave; and I have provided a further reference with another sentence in order that the knowledge of the original author can be indicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radicalmix66 (talkcontribs) 22:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I will continue to remove unsourced material. To wit, reference number 1 says You ask specifically for details of the biological effects which is interesting as it is the physical, physiological and psychological effects that characterise such weapons. RF weapons directed at either equipment or people generate heat. The MOD does not hold information relating to biological effects (eg genotoxic) as these do not apply.
Despite what appears to be a misstatement, the government official is in fact stating that the only recognized effect of RF energy is generating heat. I'm removing that statement and probably others.Batvette (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a mistatement it is two categorical facts in succession. How is it a mistatement?

In addition you have removed other info which you have not discussed........Again.

How could this not appear to be anything but biased editing on your part. Every edit you have made has been to try and remove or discredit valid information which potentially paints sections of the military you say you used to work for in a bad light. Radicalmix66 (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

These "vested interest" accusations, which are groundless and based on your own paranoia and desire for POV editing, aren't going to get you anywhere. I stated that your claims aren't supported by the provided references AND THEY AREN'T. You must be new here. Batvette (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The above represents your opinion. Something does not become so because you use block capitals. I have presented specific objective unemotional facts legitimately supported by multiple references. Radicalmix66 (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I will continue to remove material you introduce which is not supported by the references you provide. I invite input from any experienced editors who can read plain simple English and they will surely conclude as I have that you are introducing complete speculation and fiction as fact and providing anything close you find as a reference but hoping no one checks them. Batvette (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I must have missed when you actually checked something because all I see is removals and a distinct lack of any detail or legitimate rebuttal. Radicalmix66 (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do take this up with admin if you feel your edits are being wrongfully removed. I have no reason to believe discussion with you will lead to an end to your problem editing. Batvette (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You have no substance or dialogue to back your belief.Radicalmix66 (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Original_research item 2, Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.It is not my responsibility to explain why your sources do not support your edits,(and they should stand if I don't) it is my right to remove it as unsourced material because the sources do not clearly and directly support the content. Furthermore your claims I have not discussed this are only an attempt to obscure the issue, of course I did- you seem to not realize the difference between original research and a properly cited source. Batvette (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia guides that wherever there is a dispute that users should engage in constructive discourse on the specific points of disagreement until a solution is found and this is central to the process of accurate record keeping.

You can't just remove things because you don't like them. You need to demonstrate reasoning.Radicalmix66 (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The reasoning is that those are not reliable sources. The removed material is paranoia derived from paranoid sources. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That makes no sense. The sources are the parties described. Ie. The UK and US military for instance.Radicalmix66 (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This is like 4 editors now who have reverted your edits which amount to conspiracy theory and are not supported by the references you provide. I don't like the edit warring myself but will advise you your activities will end up getting you blocked and the page protected, I've seen this happen far too many times which is why I have not wasted my energy pouncing on your reverts. This is not a threat but an observation, you show signs of being a problem editor. Additionally you seem to be under some delusion that reasoning must be acceptable by you for it to be sound- it's been offered and supported by linked references to wiki policy and your intentional ignorance is not a credible refutation. You are a very new editor here with much of your activity confined to this article. Learn to work within the wiki community or I predict your editing future will not be a long one.Batvette (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Up until recently, the edits have varied. They have also been for different reasons. I have been consistent in my approach. Those objecting to war in Nazi Germany were in the minority also. Someone being the minority is no rationale for dismissing them. Especially not in the absence of any logically reasoned position which has foundation in fact and reality. I repeat the following:

"Wikipedia guides that wherever there is a dispute that users should engage in constructive discourse on the specific points of disagreement until a solution is found and this is central to the process of accurate record keeping.

You can't just remove things because you don't like them. You need to demonstrate reasoning." Radicalmix66 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)]

You were given sufficient "reasoning" several times- obviously you're arguing no reasoning is being given because you cannot refute the reasoning, i.e; show how the content is clearly and directly supported by the source as required by Wiki policy on original research and verifiability. You know, that policy you were offered to view above already, after I explained why the material would be removed? At this point saying editors aren't offering "reasoning" for removing this paranoid conspiracy theory related content is completely dishonest, a sign of a problem editor. Any interested readers can see the discussion above this section I opened before I even edited the article!
For the last time, this is the reasoning. The material is paranoid conspiracy theory beliefs which are not clearly and directly supported by the provided references (let alone by factual reality) and only vaguely by synthesis of several unrelated sources, and that makes it original research.
Finally, Godwin's law much? Batvette (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You refused to provide any specific detail for your reasoning, just saying that is 'your right' or some other similar disrespectful and arrogant comment. I've encourage you to go into specifics because your comments have not been specific and have been increasingly inflammatory, speculative and intentionally offensive (notes on edits).

The amount of information you've decided to remove has only stabilized in the last week or two and initially the changes were varying.

Recently your changes have become more aggressive and consistent. You have never gone into detail on things you removed and it is this attack like approach which has led me to believe that your changes are malicious.

Of course we welcome multiple inputs to articles as this is democratic. But when this appears to amount to getting your military/defence mates to pitch in with similar chat and no logic it's pretty transparent and does not help at all.

Despite this, I note that one of the pseudonyms of the person/persons now suddenly replicating such activity decided to posted some (albeit minor) relevant detail on my talk page rather than here. I choose to see this as an opportunity to move forward. The relevant comment is as follows:

a war-college paper discussing ways a weapon might be used does not support a statement that those weapons are being used that way. (EEng)

Ok so firstly I would say that this seems to refer to the University of Wisconsin Electromagnetic Spectrum Tutorial as this is the only university based reference deleted.

I'm not sure what fact it is he is contesting is not accurate or represented by the University tutorial; but two things spring to mind: 1. The facts portrayed by the article are fairly obvious to the majority of people. Radiation in the Radio spectrum is invisible. This is self evident? So these waves can pass through walls. Please make it clear if this is what you are contesting or something else?

2. You have removed way more than just that text and reference. I believe almost all of the other references are from official government bodies. Largely, as mentioned, those militaries spoken of. So please provide information as to why you think what they say they do is not sufficient substantiation that they are engaged in such activities.

I take the point that the use of the complaint might be relevant to the use of the word "commonly" and I will remove that. However the documents explicitly state that such weapons are part of Information Operations so this is accurate.

Sincerely Radicalmix66 (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

By war-college paper I mean, not the Univ of Wisconsin (for heaven's sake) but e.g. "Army War College Information Operations Primer" -- one of the sources YOU added! [7] Honestly, there seems to be WP:COMPETENCE problem here. EEng (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC) And I'm no one's sockpuppet -- check my edit history. You're acting like a real jerk -- cut it out

Try not to resort to cheap insults.

Again the content removed has varied. With limited comment. The document is not by some college student it is done by (quote):

U.S. Army War College Dept. of Military Strategy, Planning, and Operations & Center for Strategic Leadership

It is signed by the University Dean on page 3.

These tactics to remove information appear increasingly desperate. Radicalmix66 (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

What those documents state about "Info Ops" and DEW are not supportive of the claims in the article that state that Info Ops ARE being currently conducted domestically and DEWs ARE currently being used as part of them. It's like finding a military guide that says we have nukes and can use them so this validates a claim made that the military just nuked Cleveland. Other specific problems include that the weapons have not BEEN DEVELOPED for decades, they have been IN DEVELOPMENT for decades. Why did you change that? And what's with the BS about satellites? There is NO evidence to substantiate that a space based directed energy weapon system has ever been successfully tested let alone deployed. AND this nonsense about "targets" being "misdiagnosed". Where did that come from? The Mind Control forums?
All this amounts to one singular message you are trying to enforce on this article and it is not supported by reliable sources: That the government is covertly attacking citizens with DEW, through their walls and from space, and makes people go crazy but doctors can't tell. You're not trying to edit this article with material about DEW but to promote that conspiracy theory through vaguely sourced innuendo and original research. You've wasted far too much of my time trying to explain this and it's not up to other editors to explain why we are removing poorly sourced original research which amounts to conspiracy theory. Unsourced material is always quickly removed, this is a fundamental of wiki editing. It is up to you to demonstrate that your edits are directly and clearly supported by your sources and you are not doing that. Batvette (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion you have wasted far too much time trying to be insulting and not focusing on the detail.

You indicated that information wasn't clear. Read the quotes, it is clear, unfortunately for your wishes. Do your homework.

page 17
Information Operations Activities
203. General. Ultimately Info Ops seeks to affect actions; it helps shape the
battlespace, attacks the adversary’’s cohesion and protects our own whilst exploiting
the situation. It can make use of all military activities to attack or defend Will and
Capability and is integrated with broader military activity as part of the Campaign
Plan. Clearly attacks on Capability also have an effect on Will and vice-versa,
therefore both Info Ops and broader military activity must be carefully integrated to
ensure that the desired overall impact is achieved. The two main aspects of Info Ops
are Influence Activity, which is the primary means of influencing Will, and Counter-
Command Activity (CCA), which attack Capability. However, each may have an
impact on the other, and should not be considered exclusive activities. All activities,
be they on Will or Capability, are dependent on the provision of good information,
which is supported and protected through Information Activity. The relationship
between the various aspects of Info Ops and broader military activity is shown in
Figure 2.1.

(Page 18 shows image with quote effect on target or target audience)

page 21

b. Counter-Command Activity. Actions to affect Capability can make
use of any appropriate tools however they will commonly resort to specifically
targeted physical destruction, the use of emerging technology, offensive EW
and CNO.

page 23

2A8. Emerging Technology. Emerging Technology includes the use of directed
energy weapons such as Radio Frequency, Laser and acoustic and other non-lethal

This clear and categorical. This is not theoretical or hypothetical. The other info states what is discussed in the references.Radicalmix66 (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll not comment on this beyond stating that as I have pointed out below, documents uploaded to cannot be cited, as there is no way to ascertain their authenticity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I've read some of the text and I will defer to you on the removal of this link until I can respond properly. As regards all of the other information. It is held on official websites.Radicalmix66 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A quick point on the excerpts from the document above - where it says "offensive EW" it is clearly referring to 'electronic warfare', and not 'energy weapons' - section 2A6 defines EW explicitly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Nothing in provided wall 'o text begins to document that such "campaign(s)" are being or have ever been conducted anywhere, let alone domestically against US citizens. I'm sure you will say I've never presented this "reasoning".
Never mind the relevance of the document at all to domestic issues- haven't you heard they just passed the Posse_Comitatus_Act ?
I'm not going to expend much effort into anything other than attempting to remain patient and civil until the page is protected or you are blocked from wiki editing. You're here to present conspiracy theories, note your second edit to this article-
DEW's can be used discreetly without anyone knowing as radiation can pass through walls and is invisible.[1][2] "The public is largely unaware of the effects of DEW's and as such wouldn't consider invisible radiation as a likely cause of physical, physiological or psychological problems. The medical community also does not train doctors to recognize radiation as a potential cause of any problem so targets can routinely be misdiagnosed."
Is torn right from the page of the "targeted individual" meme we see endlessly repeated by problem editors who see wiki as their soapbox to tell the world they don't need their meds any longer. Not that this is your issue but if the shoe fits you seem to be wearing it with the original research you insist on introducing. Batvette (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Having looked at the edits made by Radicalmix66, and the sources cited, I have to agree that the sources simply do not support the material. Radicalmix66 is engaging in synthesis, and putting a spin on the material that simply cannot be justified. And yes, the paragraph about what the public is "unaware of" is unsourced, and reeks of a conspiracy theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Defence IQ talks to Dr Palíšek about Directed Energy Weapon systems", Defence iQ', Nov. 20, 2012
  2. ^ Spectrum Tutorial, University of Wisconsin Electromagnetic Spectrum Tutorial, accessed 22/06/2013

Edits by 'Beyondsquirrelly'[edit]

As far as I can see much of your information recently added does not provide references. It is largely opinions and not fact. Whilst I might agree with some of this opinion, that is immatterial; and this article is already grossly convoluted with unsubstantiated information.

Please provide references or remove the information.Radicalmix66 (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits discussion[edit]

I wanted to bringup edits made to remove information which has not been discussed here.

The last edit was to remove a link (by 'Bobrayner' 13/10/13) but the description given was "removing conspiracy theory". Please explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I would suspect it is because the link is to a site which presents a conspiracy theory. "bodies shrunk to half their original size." Funny stuff. Batvette (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you link to the story on this website? Remarkable that you found the detail not relevant to the alleged events here but you fail to provide any in depth arguments for the other pieces you have removed. Radicalmix66 (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about?Batvette (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Documents hosted on[edit]

Please note that Wikipedia cannot accept documents hosted on as a source. There is no means of verifying that such documents are what they purport to be, and have not been altered. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Further to this, I note that a document cited to is clearly marked as 'Crown copyright' - and Wikipedia policy regarding links to copyright violating material is clear. We don't allow it. Ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a link with details — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A link to what? The link is in the article history, and I see no reason to link it here - it cannot be cited as a source. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A link to the wikipedia information which states what you have said. The document was carried by Leeds University until recently when they changed their Intranet. This why the link was updated. This seems a rotten way to try and remove info rather than discuss content specifics. You are implying that the document is falsified. Is that correct? Radicalmix66 (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RS regarding identifying reliable sources, and WP:COPYLINKS regarding links to copyright violations. And no, I'm not saying the document is falsified. I'm saying that we cannot verify that it is authentic, and consequently we can't use it as a source. Not that we could use it if it was authentic as if it is, it has been uploaded in breach of copyright. Either way, it is of no use to us. Articles must cite verifiable sources with a clear publication history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

WTF are HERF guns[edit]

HERF guns redirect here, but here does not define or describe or reference HERF. (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

A Google search suggests that it refers to "high-energy radio frequency". [8] From what I can figure out, it is some sort of homebuilt radio-frequency directional electronic-gizmo zapper, built out of the magnetron from a microwave oven, along with other components. Highly illegal, and probably dangerous. The redirect should probably go unless someone can find a reliable source though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
HERF and HERF gun also redirect here. Herf gun does not (yet). had the following text, which appeared on the Slashdot main page on 11/20/2013:
can be crashed using cheap tools like <a href="">Herf guns</a>
I think it's fair to say that the term is used enough that the redirect can be kept.
Also, Google "Herf gun." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no point in having a redirect unless we define the term - which needs a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Will this do: "The HERF gun is not particularly high-tech, either." This was written in 1999.
If not, how about Computer Forensics: Computer Crime Scene Investigation, Volume 1, pp. 363-364, 444-445, by John R. Vacca, Cengage Learning, 2005 (see here for more bibliographic info)?
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Masers as DEW[edit]

I suggest to delete or expand part of the article about masers, as it provides only basic overview of the technology with no regard to use for military purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You shook me all night long[edit]

Quote: ... developed a sonic cannon that could literally shake a person apart from the inside.

Cool -- yay Nazis! But I don't really understand what "literally shakes apart from the inside" actually means, and the claim isn't substantiated further on, where there is talk of "disorientation" etc.

Could someone please look this over -- thanks. Maikel (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The "problems" section[edit]

The section titled "Problems and ethical considerations" is only focused on laser weapons. No mentioning of the problems facing any other type of weapons mentioned in the article. Also, there are exactly zero "ethical considerations" mentioned.

In fact, the whole article is focused on lasers a lot more than electromagnetic or microwave for example that they seem like a small expansion of an article about laser weapons.

I think the article needs reorganization. --Abderrahman (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Directed-energy weapon. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Directed-energy weapon. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is a mess.[edit]

I wonder if anyone else agrees with me that this article is unfocused and somewhat 'fannish' in terms of its account of Directed Energy weapons. The problems, as I see them, are:

1) It lacks any real sense of overview. The history section should be one of the first sub sections here, below the definition of what directed energy weapons are; thus historicizing the interminable and scattergun treatment of detail here.

2) There is an eccentric choice of detail here, from multiple unconfirmed conspiracy theories (which, if included, should really be included in a subsection of their own, or removed totally from the article) to multiple accounts of experiments in directed energy that have not produced any weapon worthy of the name.

3) Even the useful detail is very often unfocused and confusing. The unstructured nature of the 'Non-lethal weapons' section here is instructive.


  • There
  • is
  • too
  • much
  • bulletpointing

--to the detriment of clarity, and creating the chaotic 'listing' effect in the article as a whole.

5) The article reads at times like a promo piece for the possible application of technologies, indulging in tiresome speculation into how current theoretical or practical problems might be solved in some future scenario. There is too much speculation, in short, and too little substantiation.

Some capable editor is needed to organize and hack away at the overgrown mess that is this article.

Hope this helps.

Why There is a Sudden Wave of Vandalism[edit] (Or watch from 1:59:50 for the full context). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F02F:E000:5060:36AF:90CE:CDA4 (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC) — redacted trollery; Anders Feder (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: More of the same from OzarkerRazorback.[9] Kindly block.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)