Debt of Honour: light weapon!
jurk...@pilot.msu.edu
<lama...@hkstar.com> wrote:
>I nerver really figured out how does the light weapon of Chavez
>and Clark work, even if it did works who come the guy who has been
"hit"
>doesn't come back up?..
> Does a weapon as powrful as this one really exist?
Probably just a *really* powerful strobe that emits light at a
certain wavelength. If it's powerful enough, it can completely
destroy the light-gathering surfaces of the eyes and cause an
overload of the optic nerve and the optic processing center of the
brain. It may even go over into other neighboring brain regions. I'm
not sure about that, though. Been a while since I've had a
"practical" physiology course.
Adam
Albert Lam
Matt Giwer
>In article <314783...@hkstar.com>, Albert Lam
><lama...@hkstar.com> wrote:
>Probably just a *really* powerful strobe that emits light at a
>certain wavelength. If it's powerful enough, it can completely
>destroy the light-gathering surfaces of the eyes and cause an
>overload of the optic nerve and the optic processing center of the
>brain. It may even go over into other neighboring brain regions. I'm
>not sure about that, though. Been a while since I've had a
>"practical" physiology course.
The best that can be said from the description and from the use of the
word stobe is that it was quite broadband, as in covering the entire
visible spectrum. No amount of light can do more than damage or
destroy the retina as in physical damage. Nerves can not fire so as
to damage other nerves.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/
Commentary from the right side of the curve
Maintaining http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/tech/ (tips and tricks for webs)
http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/mgiwer4/ (eye candy, blantant advertising)
http://www2.combase.com/~matt/ (my son)
One finger is all a real American needs to deal with the government.
It takes a village idiot and other truths children have already learned.
Good luck, Mr. Gorski
pete...@uk.ibm.com
>I nerver really figured out how does the light weapon of Chavez
>and Clark work, even if it did works who come the guy who has been "hit"
>doesn't come back up?..
> Does a weapon as powrful as this one really exist?
I understood as some sort of powerfull flash gun, it would blind the target, at
least for a while and it's hard to land plane if you can't see (hell it's hard
to land one in one piece if you can!).
It would be easy enough to do with a good focusing and aiming system. I
suppose one like an SLR camera would work just fine.
The same can be done with lasers, but I think somebody banned that.
Mike Morris
I MAY have some information on what Mr. Clancy wrote about; hopefully
he will step in here and correct me as to what he wrote about and what I
played with are the same...
A couple of years ago I had the use of a hand-held portable searchlight for a
few months - it was basically a 12v gel-cell 15ah battery, with a
clamp-on-the-top 10 million / 20 million candlepower lamp. The unit had a
power focusing system that would shift from a flood light with a 90 degree
wide beam at one end of the control, to a spot that would put a 300-foot
diameter spot on a wall about a mile away at the other end of the adjustment.
The unit also had a "overdrive" mode that would double the light output for a
short period of time - it would time out at about 30 seconds to prevent
burnout.
I live about 9 miles away from a 5,200' high mountain, which has a campground
about half way up (Mt. Wilson, and Henniger Flats, for those readers familiar
with the Los Angeles,California area). A friend was taking a bunch of neighbor
kids up to Henniger for a hike, we told him to look south about 6:30pm. We put
the unit on a camera tripod and shot it at Henniger at the right time. Not
only could my friend see us, but he said that he could have read a newspaper
with the light.
The unit, for those technically minded, was basically a continuously running
strobe light, firing several thousand times a second. The parabolic reflector
was a work of art - machined and highly polished - like a telescope mirror.
The xenon bulb was field replaceable, and looked something like a studio
photographers strobe light with a plug-in connector on it.
The case was a heavily black anodized machined aluminum casting,
and used MIL-spec connectors everywhere. I did take the unit apart, just to
see what was inside. The electronics circuit board was encased in the handle.
The circuit board was encased in epoxy, but there was what apeared to be a
single-chip microprocessor controling the show. The unit came with a cigarette
lighter power plug/cable along with the battery. Other accessories included a
IR filter, spare batteries, spare bulbs, one-shot silver-zinc batteries, and a
power focus interface unit that allowed the focus motor to be slaved to the
zoom control of a video camera.
My uncles marketing company tried to sell these units to rescue organizations,
police agencies, news organizations, electrical utilities, etc. Imagine how
useful a light that bright would be to the Coast Guard doing a small craft
search at night, or illuminating a high-volatge power pole at night, etc, but
the over-$1200 price was just too high, and my uncle didn't have the proper
connections in the right circles. We even explored assembling an upgrade
kit for vehicle spotlights - police cars, tow trucks, etc. After all, the unit
ran off 12 volts... BTW, the gel-cell battery would run the light for about
an hour, and would recharge from a wall outlet in 4 hours (slow charge) or 30
minutes (fast charge, but limited number of fast charge cycles).
My connection to the manufacturer evaporated about a year after the loaner had
to be sent back, but I could make a few phone calls.
As to Mr. Clancy's use of the unit, I have no doubt that this kind of device
could be rebuilt into a package that resembled a flashgun.
If anybody is _seriously_ interested, I could follow up on locating the
manufacturer and getting price and availability information.
Russ Finley
it. In fact, it is based on the same principle that causes deer and
other animals with lesser developed brain structures to freeze in the
path of an oncoming car with its lights on.
In a nutshell, the light waves enter the eye and are focused onto the
back of the retina, where tiny rods and cones sense the frequency and
wavelenght (or something like that) of the incoming light, then transmit
that information via nerve impulses up the optic nerve into the vision
center of the brain. However, if the intensity of the light is great
enough, the volume of information running up the optic nerve is too much
for the brain to handle, and it "locks up." If I understand it
correctly, the brain tries to accomodate the surge of neural impulses,
and in so doing, is unable to attend to some of its other functions.
Breathing and heartrate and other autonomic functions aren't really
affected because these functions are controlled by the hindbrain, while
higher brain functions, such as vision and motor response, are
controlled in the cerebrum, which makes up the bulk of the human brain.
The weapon is effective because it takes some time for the brain to
recover after such an overload. The neurotransmitters released by the
neurons of the optic nerve and in the vision center of the brain have to
be recycled and otherwise removed from the neural pathways, and that
"lag" renders the individual pretty helpless. It only takes a few
seconds to recover, but those few seconds are crucial, say, if you're a
Japanese flight crew on final approach, busy keeping up with changing
wind patterns, trim adjustments, flap settings, etc..
As for whether or not this type of weapon is in use today, or is even
practical, I can't say. But I have a feeling that the technology is
still some way off, since the sheer amount of light needed to overcome
high brain functions in humans is enormous, and for the weapon to be
practical, it would require a delivery system that could handle the load
(in other words, it would need one hell of a light bulb, say... oh, a
billion watts -- that's just a WAG, by the way --? I don't think GE has
those out yet...).
Any doctors (or people smarter than me, for that matter) care to set me
straight on any goofs I made? :-)
Joe Bednorz
>I nerver really figured out how does the light weapon of Chavez
>and Clark work, even if it did works who come the guy who has been "hit"
>doesn't come back up?..
> Does a weapon as powrful as this one really exist?
Apparently it was discovered back in the 1930's or 40's that a really
powerful burst of light in the eyes did more than just blind a person
temporarily. It essentially renders them unconcious. (See Alfred
Bester's _The Demolished Man_).
They wake up with no memory of what happened, nor any idea
that they were "out." I believe Clancy pointed out that the
tri-geminal nerve is affected.
Does a weapon _exactly_ like the one in _Debt of Honor_ exist?
I've no idea. Is there one like it? Good question.
My own un-informed opinion is that such a weapon (as TC points out)
would be very useful. It's a toss-up whether bureaucratic stuffiness
or individual creativity would win out as far as its use goes.
Joe Bednorz The Lurking Horror
Matt Giwer
>Albert Lam <lama...@hkstar.com> wrote:
>>I nerver really figured out how does the light weapon of Chavez
>>and Clark work, even if it did works who come the guy who has been "hit"
>>doesn't come back up?..
>> Does a weapon as powrful as this one really exist?
>Apparently it was discovered back in the 1930's or 40's that a really
>powerful burst of light in the eyes did more than just blind a person
>temporarily. It essentially renders them unconcious. (See Alfred
>Bester's _The Demolished Man_).
Flashbang grenades do not render anyone unconscious. SF is not a
legitimate reference.
Kevin L. Kitchens
retina causes overload resulting in blindness, but beyond that, the PAIN
caused to the nerve endings prevents someone from hoping back up as if the
lights were out.
Kevin
Tom Clancy
I forgot to add that I am not fully convinced that this "light sabre," as
I call it, is truly safe. The issue is UV shielding, and possibly
permanent damage to the retina. Until that issue is resolved, the utility
of the device as a non-lethal weapon is, in my view, compromised.
TC
Matt Giwer
>Clancy on the "Light Weapon."
>It's real. I have one. The mechanics I checked with a physician, to wit, a
>neuro-ophthamologist at the Wilmer Opthamological Institute of the Johns
>Hopkins University School of Medicine.
>The light beam, evidently, overloads the trigeminal nerve which leads from
>the back of the eye into the bottom of the nervous system's junction with
>the base of the brain. This has the effect of rendering the victim
>unconscious via neural shock for a period of 15-30 minutes.
I hope you won't take this personally, but you have one. A safe
non-lethal incapacitating weapon. Where can we get one? Were can we
all tell our local police where to get them?
Where are they advertised? There was an entire symposium on
non-lethal weapons last summer and Janet Reno made a point of
mentioning the symposium, it was covered on ABC World News and no one
mentioned this device. It certainly sounds 1000% better than anything
that was mentioned.
Who is the manufacturer? Can you provide an address? What evidence
do the provide that it works as advertised? Have you tested it?
And another question, where can we get a copy of Grey's Anatomy
showing a connection between the trigeminal and the optic nerve or its
coming out of the eyesocket and a direct connection with the brain
stem or whatever "base of the brain" means?
The best description I can find is that the trigeminal nerves (both of
them) come down the side of the face and splits into three nerves (the
tri in trigeminal) in the area of the cheekbone.
Shall we say, it connects with the sardonic nerve?
Matt Giwer
>Tom Clancy (tomc...@aol.com) wrote:
>> Clancy on the "Light Weapon."
>> It's real. I have one.
><snip!>
>You *have* one?!? Boy, if the neighbors can't figure out that the
>TANK on the front lawn means "no trespassing" I guess you really
>are prepared to 'say hello'.
>(Note to myself: Be nice to authors on next book tour. They may
> be armed with nifty weaponry.)
If you look at the actual sender of this it is a demonstration that
anyone can be Tom Clancy. No, I did not conduct the demonstration.
Andrew Toppan
: Let us call a spade a spade and admit this "light weapon" is a purely
: fanciful invention for the purposes of the story. No amount of
: imagination is going to make this thing any more credible than were
: the weapons of Doc. Smith.
You're wrong. Somehow, I'm not surprised.
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- el...@confusion.net
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage -- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."
Andrew Toppan
: This from line matches the reply to line as opposed to the fake Tom
: Clancy who claimed to own one of these things. Are you claiming to be
: the one who posted the trigeminal message?
: Or is this just a better fake post?
Sorry to spoil your fun Mr. Moron, but niether post was forged and
both are from a very real Tom Clancy. We established his identity
long before you poked your ugly head into this newsgroup.
Buckaroo Banzai
> Of course the trigeminal can not damage the eyes. We all know it has
> nothing to do with the eyes. It has nothing to do with optics or
> light whatsoever.
> If the real Tom Clancy posted this then the real Tom Clancy is an
> idiot.
You can be mistaken without being an idiot. I do not, in any way, envy
neurologists whose job it is to memorize every single nerve in the body.
Has to be a bitch of a job. Last time I checked, "neurologist" was not
in TC's job description. Now, if you are going to fault him for mixing
up the names of nerves, I'm sure there are a number of people out in the
real world who could lambast you for being an "idiot". Now since we have
established that tomc...@aol.com is, indeed, the real thing, I think it
is reasonable just to say that he was mistaken in the name of the nerve
he used (provided that *you* are right, of course. I have nothing in
front of me to back up your claims) and call it a day.
Buckaroo Banzai
Len Howard
FYI, the trigeminal (5th cranial) nerve, emerges from the lateral
surfaces of the pons as a motor and a sensory root, together with some
intermediate fibers. The sensory root expands into the trigeminal
ganglion, which contains the cells of origin of most of the sensory
fibers, and from which the three divisions of the nerve arise, the
mandibular, maxillary and ophthalmic nerves. The trigeminal nerve is
sensory in supplying the face, teeth, mouth and nasal cavity, and motor
in supplying the muscles of mastication.
Maybe you need a more up to date source of information before risking
calling TC in error, especially when he checked it out with one of the
leaders in the field. There is an appropriate saying you might take into
consideration, Matt: "It is better to say nothing and be thought a fool
and to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Cheers, Len Howard MD
In article <4ij6h0$d...@wi.combase.com>, Matt Giwer <mgi...@combase.com> wrote:
>w...@direct.ca wrote:
>
> Of course the trigeminal can not damage the eyes. We all know it has
>nothing to do with the eyes. It has nothing to do with optics or
>light whatsoever.
> If the real Tom Clancy posted this then the real Tom Clancy is an
>idiot.
Conrad
(Matt Giwer) wrote:
>el...@wpi.edu (Andrew Toppan) wrote:
>
>>Matt Giwer reshaped the electrons to say:
>
>>: This from line matches the reply to line as opposed to
the fake Tom
>>: Clancy who claimed to own one of these things. Are you
claiming to be
>>: the one who posted the trigeminal message?
>>: Or is this just a better fake post?
>
>>Sorry to spoil your fun Mr. Moron, but niether post was
forged and
>>both are from a very real Tom Clancy. We established his
identity
>>long before you poked your ugly head into this newsgroup.
>
issue. Does not
>know what the trigeminal nerve is but checked it out with a
real pro.
>Is the only person claiming unconsciousness occurs when
flashbang
>grenades do not cause it.
> If that is the real Tom Clancy then the real Tom
Clancy is lying.
The readers of this NG know who the liar is. Mr. Clancy
destroyed your credibility when he blew large, gaping holes in
that cock and bull story you 1st posted to this group.
Give it up Giwer.
> Good luck, Mr. Gorski
>
>
Tom Clancy
The "light saber" acts as follows: the incoming light overloads the
trigeminal nerve, which then overloads the nerve junctions in the brain
stem, causing unconsciousness from neural shock. So it was explained to me
by a Professor-rank MD at Johns Hopkins. (NOTE: I have said all of this
before.)
Mr. Giwer says that the trigeminal nerve cannot damage the eye. He's
correct. It would seem, however, that he did not read my previous post
correctly. Mr. Giwer, I do not know who your problem is, but why not crack
open a law book and annoy John Gresham? I'm sure you met him once, too.
TC
Buckaroo Banzai
[Medical Stuff Snipped]
> Which is precisely the point. It has nothing to do with light.
> And I add a major conference on non-lethal weapons last year. Perhaps
> it was just the media but despite all the Rube Goldberg gadgets that
> were covered they missed this perfect one.
> As to the UV suggestion, one simply adds a UV filter and sells it.
> Yet this device works, obviously has been tested and we are not told
> if the volunteers have suffered eye damage or not.
> And he has one but has failed, despite requests, to give the
> manufacturer, where it is advertised whatever.
> Most any gun magazine carries the full spectrum of non-lethal weapons
> but not this one.
>
> And this all started with the Debt of Honor gadget and the description
> it is clearly nothing more than a well polished and very well focused
> mirror that gets the flashlamp light into the cockpit and nightblinds
> the pilots. It is nothing more technical in principle than a
> flashbulb in the dark.
Okay, first of all, by this article, you accuse TC of lying about
ownership of a non-lethal light-based weapon that he has stated he owns.
My question on this score is why would he lie about this? The
Hush-A-Bomb was a completely fanciful and poetically licensed weapon (as
has, again, been stated), yet TC made no claims about having seen one, or
touched one, or talked to some guy down at Redstone about one. It was
fake. He made it up. He admits that. Why, then, would he lie about a
weapon that you believe is equally fanciful?
Next point: As Len Howard and Steve White said, Mr. Clancy was dead on
with his description of something called the trigeminal having to do with
sensory reception from the eye. From what I read, it seems that the
trigeminal ganglion is a major routing point for facial sensory and, as
they said, connects directly with the brain. NOW: Mr. Clancy never said
that the "light-saber" was simply a high-wattage light bulb or some
such. In fact, other than medical, he has never described at all how the
light works. ON WHAT BASIS do you then assume that the light emitted
from the "light-saber" is simply ordinary, white light? From
descriptions in the book? Well, red, blue, and yellow light, combined,
looks like white light. Correct? That's not simply white light. Now,
as we all know, strobe lights have a very negative effect on epileptics,
causing them to go into fits (although I believe the end result of an
epileptic fit is unconsciousness. Maybe the MDs can butt in here). That
must have something to do with the trigeminal nerve and its terminus in
the brain, correct? Okay. Now lets say that some theoretical
neurologist has found that certain patterns of light, say a variance of
wavelengths from infrared to ultraviolet, at around 3 million candlepower
brightness causes unconsciousness in healthy adult males. Would the
light appear white? Yes, especially if the colors were exchanged at such
a rate that the observing eye (not target eye, mind you) was unable to
distinguish them. The blurring effect of the colors running together
would appear white. Would this be an overload of the trigeminal nerve?
Sure, from Steve and Len's description. The influx of sensory
information (with the brain trying to separate the colors and make sense
of what it was seeing) could, quite possibly, cause the brain to "hiccup"
and shut down. Last time I checked that was a good definition of
unconsciousness.
[If, at any point in this exposition, I have run grievously afoul of
modern medicine or physics, I gladly welcome corrections. Except from
Mr. Giwer.]
Now, about the lack of manufacturer information. Let's say selfsame
theoretical neurologist mentioned above approaches some R&D firm with his
idea. They construct a prototype and test it. Pretty good. So good, in
fact, the R&D firm sees millions can be made off it. Maybe a big, fat
government contract. They start the process of proposing their new toy
to the government. Maybe the FBI, maybe (Mr. Giwer's favorite) the BATF,
maybe the National Association of Police Chiefs. This is all still under
wraps, remember.
Meanwhile, TC has a friend in this R&D firm. Some old acquaintance,
perhaps, from researching days. This friend drops by one day with a new
gadget of his. "Say Tom, take a look at this. Hundred percent
non-lethal weapon. Based on light. Works great. Us down at ------- are
developing it for the ---------. We think the --------- might also be
interested." "Pretty nifty," agrees our favorite author. "Since I know
how much you are into gadgets and weapons like these, (I passed the
Sherman tank on the way in, remember?) I got Mr. ------ to let you have
this working prototype. YTou just have to sign a release saying you
won't release technical info to the public, let anyone examine it, etc."
"Well," TC conjectures, "what if the basic idea works its way into one of
my books?" (Foreshadowing) [Laugh] "Who'd believe it was real? They'd
think it was something you made up, like the Hush-A-Bomb." [Laughs from
both parties.] "Hey, another thing. Make sure you don't tell anybody
that we've got something like this in the works. We've been having
troubles with industrial espionage from --------- and ---------." "OK,"
sez TC. And, a man of his word, Tom does not give out any of the
information said R&D friend asked him not to give out. He does give out
some information he picked up himself, but nothing actually about the
weapon itself. So there.
This of course is all conjecture, but I'd really like to see some
spluttering, fuming response from Giwer.
Buckaroo Banzai
Tom Clancy
Matthew Giwer.
Sir, you introduced yourself to me and this interest group with a lie.
Actually, several lies. If I remember things properly, it goes roughly as
follows.
Some insurance guy named Clancy (a claims adjustor, you said) met with you
in Florida for a property claim (thinking you an arsonist, no less; bad
form; for a multitude of reasons, insurance companies refer such claims to
the local police agency), picked your brain (conveniently full of useful
data; a happy state of affairs not evident in your other postings), and
along the way told you that he, this notional Clancy-insurance-puke, was
publishing with the Naval Institute Press. How good of you to be so
helpful.
Okay, problems with this scenario: #1, you got the year wrong. I handed
the THFRO MS over to Marty Callaghan at the Naval Institute on the
afternoon of Monday, 28 February 1993. #2, I was then an independent
insurance agent (licensed only in the state of Maryland), and before that
a fire & marine underwriter with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company
(affectionately known to its employees back then as The Golden Goat), but
I have never adjusted a claim in my life. #3, I first visited Florida in
June, 1983, on vacation to see my mom and dad at Vero Beach, and to visit
Disney World (never again at that time of year! And NEVER again with an
infant!).
I further observe that the coincidental particulars of your story (1, an
author wannabe named Clancy; 2, who was writing about submarines and ASW;
3, who wanted to publish with the NIP; 4, was in the insurance business)
stretch the laws of probability rather too far for your allegation to be
called anything but a barefaced lie. Notionally, one would suppose it was
an attempt to give yourself a variety and degree of importance which life
has not yet accorded you.
Since then you've sniped at me from time to time. Well, sport, sorry if I
have hurt your feelings, but I have an ethos against lying that my father
taught me.
I do not claim to get all the facts in my books right. I do try, but
mistakes happen even to me, and in some of the dumbest damned examples,
too. Half the physicians in Christendom have told me that in "The Sum of
All Fears" it's called the Circle of WILLIS, not the Circle of William. In
"Clear and Present Danger" I said that the throttle controls on an MH-53
are on the collective (as they are on the UH-1, for example), when in fact
they are overhead. In "Patriot Games" I said it was INLA that killed Lord
Louis Mountbatten. I had bad data; it was actually a renegade faction of
the PIRA. There are others.
Sometimes I get it right and wrong at the same time. The torture scene in
"Without Remorse" is wrong in some important particulars. Why? Because the
edition of "Principles of Internal Medicine" I borrowed from my family doc
had bad data. I subsequently got a lengthy and detailed letter from a
professor of medicine at a Midwestern medschool, formerly a Navy
Commander, MD, and an expert in barotrauma. I wrote back explaining how I
got my data, and he decided to write to the author of the textbook to set
him straight. Yes, there are occasional mistakes in medical textbooks.
The "light saber" is not one of them. I am restricted by contract in what
I can say about it. I was interested in the *how* mechanism of the
instrument's effectiveness, and so I called a friend at Johns Hopkins (I
hesitate to reveal names; suffice it to say a high-ranking ophthamologist
who treats me) who admitted to me that he wasn't sure, and so he referred
me to a NEURO-ophthamologist who then speculated on how it had to work. I
had to give him specifications in lumens (don't ask; I didn't memorize it
and I don't know where my secretary filed it). He gave me a twenty-minute
education in how the eye nerves interface with the nervous system (which
is his mission in life), and as the old joke goes, I learned more about
penguins than I ever wanted to know.
The effectiveness of the weapon is distance-limited due to the
inverse-square law. Within a given radius it will cause incapacitation
from neural shock. For a far larger radius it will dazzle very badly. At a
radius as yet undetermined it will cause retinal burns, and the issue of
UV shielding has not yet been resolved to my satisfaction. This thing will
fry a person's eyeballs. I'm not an engineer, and in any case, though I
regard this gadget as a potentially very useful home-defense weapon, not
to mention it's law-enforcement applications, I am fearful of its falling
into criminal hands. So, no, guys, I will not discuss it in an open forum.
I *have* discussed it with some FBI and USSS friends, and made the proper
contacts for them.
In short, Giwer, enough. I don't even know if this is a real name you are
using. I don't know your education or professional background. I do know
that since you have manifestly lied to people about me, I will henceforth
not believe a single thing you say. Be a good chap. Annoy someone else.
The world, alas, if not bereft of people who, infuriated at their
littleness, seek solice in attacking others, rather then in working to
improve their own lot. The funny thing is, doing the work--works.
TC
Matt Giwer
>On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> How about simply not agreeing with the description in the book? It
>> was nothing more than a souped up flashlight and did not cause
>> unconsciousness. And that is both in the aircraft and the Africa
>> description.
>Okay, quick response to this response to my conjecture. Conjecture it
>was. I do not have the book in front of me, and am going from memory and
>what has been said on the NG. Since you have a preponderance for
>over-simplifying things, Mr. Giwer, I assumed you had done so again on
>this instance. My apologies.
I oversimplify? I quoted directly from pages 602 and the top of 603.
It is described in the book as a souped up flashlight. It uses a
xenon flashtube just like the flashgun on your camera.
>> >Now, about the lack of manufacturer information. Let's say selfsame
>> >theoretical neurologist mentioned above approaches some R&D firm with his
>> >idea. They construct a prototype and test it. Pretty good. So good, in
>> >fact, the R&D firm sees millions can be made off it. Maybe a big, fat
>> >government contract. They start the process of proposing their new toy
>> >to the government. Maybe the FBI, maybe (Mr. Giwer's favorite) the BATF,
>> >maybe the National Association of Police Chiefs. This is all still under
>> >wraps, remember.
>>
>> Who knows, you are not talking about what is under discussion, the
>> device in the book.
>Doesn't mean just because I got the mechanics of the device f***ed up,
>this still isn't valid. In the above post by Mr. C, he *does* say he is
>under contract *not* to reveal certain information about the weapon.
>Sounds like I hit that nail on the head, doncha think? But enough. I
>shoulda stopped responding to you long ago.
Excuse me but when everything but the power supply and the capacitor
bank is revealed in DOH just what is there left to keep quiet about?
I will give you the only possibility I can think of and that is the
math that describes the exact shape of the reflector such that it has
a distributed focus that subsumes the volume of the flashlamp.
Just get out your copy of the book and start reading at the bottom of
page 602.
Matt Giwer
>On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:
>[Medical Stuff Snipped]
>> Which is precisely the point. It has nothing to do with light.
>> And I add a major conference on non-lethal weapons last year. Perhaps
>> it was just the media but despite all the Rube Goldberg gadgets that
>> were covered they missed this perfect one.
>> As to the UV suggestion, one simply adds a UV filter and sells it.
>> Yet this device works, obviously has been tested and we are not told
>> if the volunteers have suffered eye damage or not.
>> And he has one but has failed, despite requests, to give the
>> manufacturer, where it is advertised whatever.
>> Most any gun magazine carries the full spectrum of non-lethal weapons
>> but not this one.
>>
>> And this all started with the Debt of Honor gadget and the description
>> it is clearly nothing more than a well polished and very well focused
>> mirror that gets the flashlamp light into the cockpit and nightblinds
>> the pilots. It is nothing more technical in principle than a
>> flashbulb in the dark.
>Okay, first of all, by this article, you accuse TC of lying about
>ownership of a non-lethal light-based weapon that he has stated he owns.
1st off, I asked the person who posted a message with a different from
line than the respond to line who manufactures it among other
questions. Still no answer to those questions.
>My question on this score is why would he lie about this?
If he will just please get it out and type in the name of the
manufacturer then we can go from there, right? Real simple.
The
>Hush-A-Bomb was a completely fanciful and poetically licensed weapon (as
>has, again, been stated), yet TC made no claims about having seen one, or
>touched one, or talked to some guy down at Redstone about one. It was
>fake. He made it up. He admits that. Why, then, would he lie about a
>weapon that you believe is equally fanciful?
>Next point: As Len Howard and Steve White said, Mr. Clancy was dead on
>with his description of something called the trigeminal having to do with
>sensory reception from the eye. From what I read, it seems that the
>trigeminal ganglion is a major routing point for facial sensory and, as
>they said, connects directly with the brain. NOW: Mr. Clancy never said
>that the "light-saber" was simply a high-wattage light bulb or some
>such. In fact, other than medical, he has never described at all how the
>light works. ON WHAT BASIS do you then assume that the light emitted
>from the "light-saber" is simply ordinary, white light?
The desciption in Debt of Honor, of course. In my copy, page 602, at
the bottom.
"The "magic" they had used in Africa was conceptually nothing more
than a souped up flashlight, but this one had a xenon-arc bulb and put
out three million candlepower. The most expensive part of the
assembly was the reflector, and finely machined steel alloy that
confined the beam to a diamter of about fourth feet at a distance of
one mile. One could easily read a newspaper by the illumination
provided at that distance, but to look directly into the light, even
at that distance, was quite blinding. Designed and issued as a
non-lethal weapon, the bulb was shielded from ultraviolet light, which
could do permanent damage to the human retina. The thought passed
though Ding's mind mind when he triggered the light. Nonlethal.
Sure."
NEXT PARAGRAPH
"The intensity of the blue-white light seared the pilot's eyes. It
was like looking directly at the sun, bur worse, and the pain made his
hands come off the controls to his face ..."
It goes on describe the very conscious attempts the pilot makes to
regain control of the plane.
Now, where is the trigeminal in this description? Where is the 15-30
minutes of unconsciousness? Where is the "they are concerned about
the UV" when it is clearly already solved here? Xenon flash lamp like
in the flash gun on a camera, that is what I described as did the Tom
Clancy who wrote the book describe it.
From
>descriptions in the book? Well, red, blue, and yellow light, combined,
>looks like white light. Correct? That's not simply white light.
A xenon strobe for your camera put out a light white enough to use
with outdoor film.
Now,
>as we all know, strobe lights have a very negative effect on epileptics,
>causing them to go into fits (although I believe the end result of an
>epileptic fit is unconsciousness.
Not with a single flash as described in the book and the thread was
talking about the device in the book.
Maybe the MDs can butt in here). That
>must have something to do with the trigeminal nerve and its terminus in
>the brain, correct? Okay. Now lets say that some theoretical
>neurologist has found that certain patterns of light, say a variance of
>wavelengths from infrared to ultraviolet, at around 3 million candlepower
>brightness causes unconsciousness in healthy adult males. Would the
>light appear white? Yes, especially if the colors were exchanged at such
>a rate that the observing eye (not target eye, mind you) was unable to
>distinguish them. The blurring effect of the colors running together
>would appear white. Would this be an overload of the trigeminal nerve?
>Sure, from Steve and Len's description. The influx of sensory
>information (with the brain trying to separate the colors and make sense
>of what it was seeing) could, quite possibly, cause the brain to "hiccup"
>and shut down. Last time I checked that was a good definition of
>unconsciousness.
That sounds like a fascinating weapon but it has no relation to the
one described in the book nor the one that is under discussion here.
>[If, at any point in this exposition, I have run grievously afoul of
>modern medicine or physics, I gladly welcome corrections. Except from
>Mr. Giwer.]
How about simply not agreeing with the description in the book? It
was nothing more than a souped up flashlight and did not cause
unconsciousness. And that is both in the aircraft and the Africa
description.
>Now, about the lack of manufacturer information. Let's say selfsame
>theoretical neurologist mentioned above approaches some R&D firm with his
>idea. They construct a prototype and test it. Pretty good. So good, in
>fact, the R&D firm sees millions can be made off it. Maybe a big, fat
>government contract. They start the process of proposing their new toy
>to the government. Maybe the FBI, maybe (Mr. Giwer's favorite) the BATF,
>maybe the National Association of Police Chiefs. This is all still under
>wraps, remember.
Who knows, you are not talking about what is under discussion, the
device in the book.
>Meanwhile, TC has a friend in this R&D firm. Some old acquaintance,
>perhaps, from researching days. This friend drops by one day with a new
>gadget of his. "Say Tom, take a look at this. Hundred percent
>non-lethal weapon. Based on light. Works great. Us down at ------- are
>developing it for the ---------. We think the --------- might also be
>interested." "Pretty nifty," agrees our favorite author. "Since I know
>how much you are into gadgets and weapons like these, (I passed the
>Sherman tank on the way in, remember?) I got Mr. ------ to let you have
>this working prototype. YTou just have to sign a release saying you
>won't release technical info to the public, let anyone examine it, etc."
>"Well," TC conjectures, "what if the basic idea works its way into one of
>my books?" (Foreshadowing) [Laugh] "Who'd believe it was real? They'd
>think it was something you made up, like the Hush-A-Bomb." [Laughs from
>both parties.] "Hey, another thing. Make sure you don't tell anybody
>that we've got something like this in the works. We've been having
>troubles with industrial espionage from --------- and ---------." "OK,"
>sez TC. And, a man of his word, Tom does not give out any of the
>information said R&D friend asked him not to give out. He does give out
>some information he picked up himself, but nothing actually about the
>weapon itself. So there.
>This of course is all conjecture, but I'd really like to see some
>spluttering, fuming response from Giwer.
Sorry but I have only the book to go by and not what your fertile mind
can come up with.
Now lets get back to the discussion of the souped up flashlight where
we started this.
Steve Daniels
>On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:
>Okay, first of all, by this article, you accuse TC of lying about
>ownership of a non-lethal light-based weapon . . .<big 'ol snip>
Don't know what it is, but the Giwer thing really likes to bait TC.
If we don't feed him, maybe he will go away.
--
sdan...@jeffnet.org Love me,
Windr...@aol.com Love my dog.
Bailey
stood on the electronic soapbox and said:
> If that is the real Tom Clancy then the real Tom Clancy is lying.
A liar?? This from the man who started a thread "Tommy, I knew him
when" around the first of the year and claimed to be working at the
Naval Institute and claimed to have helped Tom Clancy with HfRO, Only
to have TC himself call him a "Liar"..... Heee-hee-heee-heeee
(God, I love DejaNews!!!!!)
Jeff Bailey
bail...@ix.netcom.com
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/1536/
Buckaroo Banzai
> How about simply not agreeing with the description in the book? It
> was nothing more than a souped up flashlight and did not cause
> unconsciousness. And that is both in the aircraft and the Africa
> description.
Okay, quick response to this response to my conjecture. Conjecture it
was. I do not have the book in front of me, and am going from memory and
what has been said on the NG. Since you have a preponderance for
over-simplifying things, Mr. Giwer, I assumed you had done so again on
this instance. My apologies.
> >Now, about the lack of manufacturer information. Let's say selfsame
> >theoretical neurologist mentioned above approaches some R&D firm with his
> >idea. They construct a prototype and test it. Pretty good. So good, in
> >fact, the R&D firm sees millions can be made off it. Maybe a big, fat
> >government contract. They start the process of proposing their new toy
> >to the government. Maybe the FBI, maybe (Mr. Giwer's favorite) the BATF,
> >maybe the National Association of Police Chiefs. This is all still under
> >wraps, remember.
>
> Who knows, you are not talking about what is under discussion, the
> device in the book.
Doesn't mean just because I got the mechanics of the device f***ed up,
this still isn't valid. In the above post by Mr. C, he *does* say he is
under contract *not* to reveal certain information about the weapon.
Sounds like I hit that nail on the head, doncha think? But enough. I
shoulda stopped responding to you long ago.
Buckaroo Banzai
BlackBeard
Buckaroo Banzai <kle...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> [Medical Stuff Snipped]
>
<lotsa stuff snipped>
>
> The
> Hush-A-Bomb was a completely fanciful and poetically licensed weapon (as
> has, again, been stated), yet TC made no claims about having seen one, or
> touched one, or talked to some guy down at Redstone about one. It was
> fake. He made it up. He admits that. Why, then, would he lie about a
> weapon that you believe is equally fanciful?
(taking this ridiculously long argument on a completely different tangent ;)
REDSTONE!!!!!!!! how dare you...
If there was a cellulouse bomb, (which there isn't)
And if it he had seen it (he hasn't)
And if had touched it (he hasn't)
And certainly if he talked to someone about it (he hasn't)
It wouldn't have been from Redstone arsenal (the help-U-store of munitions)
It would certainly have been developed at China Lake
(which it wasn't) ;)
OBO a.b.TC
I just finished reading "Point Man" by James "Patches" Watson and a real
author. An excellent autobiography of one of the plankholders from SEAL
team 2. He was the point man for his squad in Viet Nam and did 3 tours.
Great reading for anyone interested in this. He also mentions China Lake
as the lab that would develop specialized weapons on an immediate
turnaround to meet their needs.
For those that have been following the Kelly/Clark actor thread. Take a
look at the pictures in the book. As I've said before, you see a bunch of
thin, determined individuals. THese are the majority of the SEALs, not
the hollywood rambo types.
BlackBeard
-. .- -..- --.-
De Profundis
Matt Giwer
>Clancy makes his final, penultimate, never to be repeated response to Mr.
>Matthew Giwer.
>Sir, you introduced yourself to me and this interest group with a lie.
>Actually, several lies. If I remember things properly, it goes roughly as
>follows.
>Some insurance guy named Clancy (a claims adjustor, you said) met with you
>in Florida for a property claim (thinking you an arsonist, no less; bad
>form; for a multitude of reasons, insurance companies refer such claims to
>the local police agency), picked your brain (conveniently full of useful
>data; a happy state of affairs not evident in your other postings), and
>along the way told you that he, this notional Clancy-insurance-puke, was
>publishing with the Naval Institute Press. How good of you to be so
>helpful.
As I have said, we have been over all this and I have offered you a
public apology, you have not accepted it, I have no idea what more I
can do.
>The "light saber" is not one of them.
The discussion was of the device described in Debt of Honor. You came
in with a description of something entirely different from the "souped
up flashlight" in Debt of Honor. What did your response have to do
with the weapon in DOH? Nothing obviously.
I am restricted by contract in what
>I can say about it. I was interested in the *how* mechanism of the
>instrument's effectiveness, and so I called a friend at Johns Hopkins (I
>hesitate to reveal names; suffice it to say a high-ranking ophthamologist
>who treats me) who admitted to me that he wasn't sure, and so he referred
>me to a NEURO-ophthamologist who then speculated on how it had to work. I
>had to give him specifications in lumens (don't ask; I didn't memorize it
>and I don't know where my secretary filed it). He gave me a twenty-minute
>education in how the eye nerves interface with the nervous system (which
>is his mission in life), and as the old joke goes, I learned more about
>penguins than I ever wanted to know.
>The effectiveness of the weapon is distance-limited due to the
>inverse-square law. Within a given radius it will cause incapacitation
>from neural shock. For a far larger radius it will dazzle very badly. At a
>radius as yet undetermined it will cause retinal burns, and the issue of
>UV shielding has not yet been resolved to my satisfaction. This thing will
>fry a person's eyeballs. I'm not an engineer, and in any case, though I
>regard this gadget as a potentially very useful home-defense weapon, not
>to mention it's law-enforcement applications, I am fearful of its falling
>into criminal hands. So, no, guys, I will not discuss it in an open forum.
>I *have* discussed it with some FBI and USSS friends, and made the proper
>contacts for them.
But the device you described in the book is nothing more than a high
power photoflash that would be used for any camera. It is also is an
over the shoulder device. At 2 km (page 602) it causes such intense
pain that a pilots pull their hands off of the controls. 1 km that
will double, (inverse square) at half km it is four times, at 1/4 it
is 8 times, at 1/8 it is 16 times ... at personal confrontation
distances ... a lot more. Obviously a much small device would be
used then, called a flashgun available at any camera store; the souped
up flashlight of DOH.
It is also unclear why would not conduct an exchange program with
criminals to exchange these devices for their guns.
>In short, Giwer, enough. I don't even know if this is a real name you are
>using. I don't know your education or professional background. I do know
>that since you have manifestly lied to people about me, I will henceforth
>not believe a single thing you say.
As I have said to you by mail, it was not you, but my memories are as
described. But rather than believing me will you believe what Tom
Clancy wrote in Debt of Honor about this souped up flashlight?
Be a good chap. Annoy someone else.
>The world, alas, if not bereft of people who, infuriated at their
>littleness, seek solice in attacking others, rather then in working to
>improve their own lot. The funny thing is, doing the work--works.
Do not think you are the only one I would have responded to for
describing a souped up flashlight in the manner you did.
Paul Stauffer
blah, blah, blah... lots of crap deleted.
Tom, if you get your hands on the working light weapon, point it Matt's way!
Paul
--
_______________________________________
Paul Stauffer of Gaithersburg, Maryland
p...@his.com http://www.his.com/~ps
Claude D. Bilbo
> But the device you described in the book is nothing more than a high
>power photoflash that would be used for any camera. It is also is an
>over the shoulder device. At 2 km (page 602) it causes such intense
>pain that a pilots pull their hands off of the controls. 1 km that
>will double, (inverse square) at half km it is four times, at 1/4 it
>is 8 times, at 1/8 it is 16 times ... at personal confrontation
>distances ... a lot more. Obviously a much small device would be
>used then, called a flashgun available at any camera store; the souped
>up flashlight of DOH.
The inverse square law applies to a point source, like a light bulb. In
which case, you give up effective range for a wide angle of attack. But
for a focused light source, using a parabolic lens with a point source
at it's focal point, the inverse square law does not apply. Now you have
a very long range but a narrow angle of attack, as with a laser. Of
course, you can't do this perfectly, and the precision with which you
manufacture the device will limit it's range.
Claude D. Bilbo
cbi...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~cbilbo
w...@direct.ca
> But the device you described in the book is nothing more than a high
>power photoflash that would be used for any camera. It is also is an
>over the shoulder device. At 2 km (page 602) it causes such intense
>pain that a pilots pull their hands off of the controls. 1 km that
>will double, (inverse square) at half km it is four times, at 1/4 it
Wowhoho.... You don't really know the inverse square law, do you???
If you had did a bit more physics in high school, you might know that
it is when distance is being devided by 2, the power increase by 4 folds.
not the puny 2 you had described.
>is 8 times, at 1/8 it is 16 times ... at personal confrontation
>distances ... a lot more. Obviously a much small device would be
>used then, called a flashgun available at any camera store; the souped
>up flashlight of DOH.
> It is also unclear why would not conduct an exchange program with
>criminals to exchange these devices for their guns.
Why won't they do that? cuz they want to kill by heavy metal poisoning,
if you can stand a few shots. Also, reloading a single shot flash gun is a slow
task, you can empty a cartritge of bullets before you can reload the dorky
flash gun. I would prefer shot gun.....
>>In short, Giwer, enough. I don't even know if this is a real name you are
>>using. I don't know your education or professional background. I do know
>>that since you have manifestly lied to people about me, I will henceforth
>>not believe a single thing you say.
>
> As I have said to you by mail, it was not you, but my memories are as
>described. But rather than believing me will you believe what Tom
>Clancy wrote in Debt of Honor about this souped up flashlight?
>
>Be a good chap. Annoy someone else.
>>The world, alas, if not bereft of people who, infuriated at their
>>littleness, seek solice in attacking others, rather then in working to
>>improve their own lot. The funny thing is, doing the work--works.
>
> Do not think you are the only one I would have responded to for
>describing a souped up flashlight in the manner you did.
Didn't you already know? HE IS RESTRICTED BY CONTRACT that he can't reveal
some details on the stuff. SO WHAT if he want to patch it hole by the specs of
a regular flash gun?
R. Andy Baker
I will now make the mistake of attempting to reply to Matt (I'd refer to him
as Mr. Giwer, but that could be construed as a sign of respect).
Matt, you have made the error of assuming that this weapon is a souped up
flashlight. Yet your quote from the book clearly states that it is
*conceptually* nothing more than a souped up flashlight. Big difference.
One could say that the solid fuel rocket boosters for the space shuttle
are conceptually nothing more than souped up model rockets, of the variety
that can be aquired at just about any hobby store. Now Matt, if you can
get a telecomunications satellite into orbit using only parts purchased at
a hobby shop, then I'll believe that this weapon can be made from parts
availible at any camera shop.
Now, your comparison between the xenon-arc bulb in DoH and a camera
flash, leaves much to be desired. Yes, they are both light sources, and
they both have xenon. Does this mean that they are the same? Lets
see... my lawn mower has an engine, and a Dodge Viper has an engine. And
wow, they both run on gasoline! Does this mean that my lawn mower can
leave just about any car behind at a stop light? You do the math.
And finally, when you post a reply to this, could you please try to throw
in a fact or two? If you've forgotten what they are, look it up.
(Guys, I know he won't do it, but I just had to ask.)
| R. Andy Baker sher...@holly.ACNS.ColoState.edu |
| Junior in Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Duct tape is like the Force, it has light and |
| dark sides and it holds the universe together. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| When I'm not playing engineer in Colorado, I go |
| home to Orange County, CA to clean-up Disneyland. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
The WALKER
> much damage *should* leave some physical damage)
That light weapon from Debt of Honour was truly amazing...
I expect that anything that causes someone to be unconscious for
15 to 30 minutes will surely cause permanent visual damage.
Just like if you are lightly tapped on the head, it CAN
cause brain damage, and permanent degradation of hearing can
result from standing to close to explosions etc (Just ask
William Shatner)
bye.
-tW
Steve Daniels
> As I have said, we have been over all this and I have offered you a
>public apology, you have not accepted it, I have no idea what more I
>can do.
Try falling on your sword.
Matt Giwer
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>blah, blah, blah... lots of crap deleted.
>Tom, if you get your hands on the working light weapon, point it Matt's way!
He already has a souped up flashlight. Did you not read what he said?
Matt Giwer
>In <4iq0ug$p...@wi.combase.com>, mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) writes:
>> But the device you described in the book is nothing more than a high
>>power photoflash that would be used for any camera. It is also is an
>>over the shoulder device. At 2 km (page 602) it causes such intense
>>pain that a pilots pull their hands off of the controls. 1 km that
>>will double, (inverse square) at half km it is four times, at 1/4 it
>Wowhoho.... You don't really know the inverse square law, do you???
>If you had did a bit more physics in high school, you might know that
>it is when distance is being devided by 2, the power increase by 4 folds.
>not the puny 2 you had described.
By golly you are right. I was sloppy in that one. So lets see, a
shoulder held device that causes intense pain to the eyes (not
involving the trigeminal and not causing unconsciousness) means that
every number I wrote to the power of 2. Golly. And this will not fry
the retina at the average encounter range of 14 feet.
>>is 8 times, at 1/8 it is 16 times ... at personal confrontation
>>distances ... a lot more. Obviously a much small device would be
>>used then, called a flashgun available at any camera store; the souped
>>up flashlight of DOH.
>> It is also unclear why would not conduct an exchange program with
>>criminals to exchange these devices for their guns.
>Why won't they do that? cuz they want to kill by heavy metal poisoning,
>if you can stand a few shots. Also, reloading a single shot flash gun is a slow
>task, you can empty a cartritge of bullets before you can reload the dorky
>flash gun. I would prefer shot gun.....
As I said, why is there a concern about a shoulder held weapon falling
into the hands of criminals when there should be a weapon exchange?
>>>In short, Giwer, enough. I don't even know if this is a real name you are
>>>using. I don't know your education or professional background. I do know
>>>that since you have manifestly lied to people about me, I will henceforth
>>>not believe a single thing you say.
>>
>> As I have said to you by mail, it was not you, but my memories are as
>>described. But rather than believing me will you believe what Tom
>>Clancy wrote in Debt of Honor about this souped up flashlight?
>>
>>Be a good chap. Annoy someone else.
>>>The world, alas, if not bereft of people who, infuriated at their
>>>littleness, seek solice in attacking others, rather then in working to
>>>improve their own lot. The funny thing is, doing the work--works.
>>
>> Do not think you are the only one I would have responded to for
>>describing a souped up flashlight in the manner you did.
>Didn't you already know? HE IS RESTRICTED BY CONTRACT that he can't reveal
>some details on the stuff. SO WHAT if he want to patch it hole by the specs of
>a regular flash gun?
Excuse me. The thread was regarding the souped up flashlight in DOH.
All the details of interest are spelled out in DOH. There is nothing
about the description in DOH that would be a problem if the mirror can
be manufactured. There is no hole to patch. The description of the
weapon stands as is without this magic unconsciousness coming into
play. It will work just fine as it is.
davi...@uvic.ca
>mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>
>> As I have said, we have been over all this and I have offered you a
>>public apology, you have not accepted it, I have no idea what more I
>>can do.
>
Sitting on a mine would be more "flashy".
Markus Nybom BKF
: Buckaroo Banzai <kle...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
:
: >On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:
:
:
: >Okay, first of all, by this article, you accuse TC of lying about
: >ownership of a non-lethal light-based weapon . . .<big 'ol snip>
:
: Don't know what it is, but the Giwer thing really likes to bait TC.
: If we don't feed him, maybe he will go away.
I'm definitely taking no sides in this conflict, but I think Giwer
is in his full right to doubt the authencity of the TC article. Personally
I believe this IS Mr. Clancy, but what do I know? I found it hard to believe
when I started to read this newsgroup in 93, but I've come to accept it, for no
special reason, just that I believe that if someone is actually going to all
this trouble researching the stuff that TC writes of, and then copies his
style of writing, and opinions, well... then that guy should start writing
books too.
Giwers question to TC was: Can you please tell us the name of
the manufacturer of this light weapon?
Mr. Clancy, why don't you just tell us all, and the matter is settled.
Regards,
Markus Nybom
P.S. Uh, what's this about a Sherman on TC's
lawn??
Markus Nybom BKF
: Giwers question to TC was: Can you please tell us the name of
: the manufacturer of this light weapon?
:
: Mr. Clancy, why don't you just tell us all, and the matter is settled.
Ok, I'm replying to my own article. (This gives a new dimension to
talking to oneself, doesn't it?=) I just read Mr. Clancy's reply to Giwer
and it seems Mr. Clancy is under obligation not to tell us. So much for that.
: P.S. Uh, what's this about a Sherman on TC's
: lawn??
I want an Abrams. =)
Markus
Andrew Toppan
[snip stuff about it not really being Clancy. It *is* Clancy.
This has been proved a multitude of times.]
: P.S. Uh, what's this about a Sherman on TC's
: lawn??
His wife gave him a tank for his birthday (or was it Xmas?).
pkn...@opie.bgsu.edu
I'm not really sure what your credentials are, but so far I have
seen Mr. Clancy, who refered to a Surgeon at Tom Hopkins a medical
student and a Doctor all verify Mr. Clancy's description. I have
relatively no knowledge of neurology or the functiopns of nerves. I do
know however that nerves can act in very strange ways. Do to an old
football injury I have Sympathetic Nerve Dystrophy. I know it efects
people in different ways but in my case when I get sudden climate changes
my sympathetic nerves set off my pain receptors causing an arthritic pain
through my arm. I am not expecting any sympathetic response, but the
whole point is that even though the sympathetic nervous system have
nothing what so ever to do with pain they still screw up those nerves.
Face it you are wrong. You continously discrewdit yourself with
unresearched, or off the top of your head responses. You are winning no
friends on this newsgroup. There is nothing wrong admitting your wrong
when you are (I do it all the time). But, there is a problem when you
refuse to admit your own mistakes. Get off your high horse and learn
something, because that is the whole reason behind listening to
dissenting opinions.
==================================
====================== Computers the Demand of the Land ======================
==================================
Paul Knuth
Bowling Green State University
Computer Science & Management Information Systems
email:
pkn...@bgnet.bgsu.edu
pkn...@opie.bgsu.edu
pkn...@bgsuvax.bgsu.edu
===============================================================================
In the quest for higher education, we discover an enormous amount of ignorance.
===============================================================================
Richard Rapier
<snip>
>
> No obligation to tell us about a souped up flashlight? Of course
not.
>All of its secrets were revealed in DOH.
> And we still have to ask why, when the subject was the light weapon
in
>DOH, that Tom Clancy was not familiar with his own description of it
>in DOH when he described its functioning in this group?
>
Perhaps you need to read the book again, if you would read farther on in the
book, it describes how at close range. In the paperback edition, on Page 842,
it describes how the weapon, at close range, overloads the central nervous
system. As described, a person hit with it fell to the floor like a rag doll.
Specifically, as Mr. Clancy, and others have described in this newsgroup, it
caused this via the Trigeminal nerve. I certainly don't know personally if
this is the actual effect of such a light, but the book does describe it that
way, so please, next time, get your facts straight.
Richard
Matt Giwer
>> Would that damage the nerve in the eyes? (I assume anything that could do this
>> much damage *should* leave some physical damage)
>That light weapon from Debt of Honour was truly amazing...
The author describes it as a souped up flashlight.
>I expect that anything that causes someone to be unconscious for
>15 to 30 minutes will surely cause permanent visual damage.
The only effect described in DOH is nightblindness. There is no
unconsciousness mentioned at all. Nor is there any more reason to
expect it than if you looked into a camera flashgun in the dark. In
fact, those who were blinded in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not report
unconsciousness either. In fact unconsciousness from bright flashes
of light is unknown in humans even when it results in retinal damage.
If fact, given that blindness has occured in people looking at the
sun, particularly during an eclipse, there is no evidence of pain
being cause by light at all even when the retina is being destroyed.
>Just like if you are lightly tapped on the head, it CAN
>cause brain damage, and permanent degradation of hearing can
>result from standing to close to explosions etc (Just ask
>William Shatner)
From the decription in DOH any close range usage would fry the retinas
but from the rest of the literature, no pain.
Matt Giwer
>mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>> As I have said, we have been over all this and I have offered you a
>>public apology, you have not accepted it, I have no idea what more I
>>can do.
>Try falling on your sword.
Try reading about the souped up flashlight with magic properties.
Matt Giwer
>I myself redirected the currents to say:
>
>: Giwers question to TC was: Can you please tell us the name of
>: the manufacturer of this light weapon?
>:
>: Mr. Clancy, why don't you just tell us all, and the matter is settled.
>
> Ok, I'm replying to my own article. (This gives a new dimension to
>talking to oneself, doesn't it?=) I just read Mr. Clancy's reply to Giwer
>and it seems Mr. Clancy is under obligation not to tell us. So much for that.
No obligation to tell us about a souped up flashlight? Of course not.
All of its secrets were revealed in DOH.
And we still have to ask why, when the subject was the light weapon in
DOH, that Tom Clancy was not familiar with his own description of it
in DOH when he described its functioning in this group?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Giwer
>I will now make the mistake of attempting to reply to Matt (I'd refer to him
>as Mr. Giwer, but that could be construed as a sign of respect).
>Matt, you have made the error of assuming that this weapon is a souped up
>flashlight. Yet your quote from the book clearly states that it is
>*conceptually* nothing more than a souped up flashlight. Big difference.
Not a big difference as the author of DOH went on to describe the
difference with " BUT this one had a xenon-arc bulb" and with a
description of the reflector. Those are the differences described in
the book. And the PURPOSE described in the book is to constrain the
light to a 40 ft. circle at one mile. Yes, that is the way to do it.
>One could say that the solid fuel rocket boosters for the space shuttle
>are conceptually nothing more than souped up model rockets, of the variety
>that can be aquired at just about any hobby store. Now Matt, if you can
>get a telecomunications satellite into orbit using only parts purchased at
>a hobby shop, then I'll believe that this weapon can be made from parts
>availible at any camera shop.
You do not have to believe anything I did not say. It is conceptually
no different from a photoflash the only purpose as described in DOH
was to get a bright flash that far away, nothing more. Although it
would not work as described (the copilot's eyes are "drawn" to the
light but eyes can't move in less than a millisecond to look) at least
the nightblindness part is perfectly reasonable.
We can consider the pain poetic license as it is not reported in cases
of retinal damage by light. Listen to the warnings next time there is
an eclipse in your area. They warnings will tell you you can damage
your retina without feeling a thing.
>Now, your comparison between the xenon-arc bulb in DoH and a camera
>flash, leaves much to be desired. Yes, they are both light sources, and
>they both have xenon. Does this mean that they are the same? Lets
>see... my lawn mower has an engine, and a Dodge Viper has an engine. And
>wow, they both run on gasoline! Does this mean that my lawn mower can
>leave just about any car behind at a stop light? You do the math.
Lets see, since both are gasoline engines does that mean the one in
the car permits it to fly? So why does a photoflash that, in the
dark, can cause nightblindness, the very effect exaggerated in DOH,
suddenly cause 15-30 minutes of unconsciousness? We are not talking
degree here in the least, we are talking about something unreported in
the literature even when the retina is damaged to the point of
blindness.
>And finally, when you post a reply to this, could you please try to throw
>in a fact or two? If you've forgotten what they are, look it up.
>(Guys, I know he won't do it, but I just had to ask.)
I do not think you have read the book lately either. It starts at the
bottom of page 602. Then compare it to the description of the effect
given here. Whatever Tom Clancy is talking about it is not what was
described in DOH.
Claude D. Bilbo
>sdan...@jeffnet.org (Steve Daniels) wrote:
>>mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>>> As I have said, we have been over all this and I have offered you a
>>>public apology, you have not accepted it, I have no idea what more I
>>>can do.
>>Try falling on your sword.
> Try reading about the souped up flashlight with magic properties.
Mr. Giwer,
You can't stop taking your medication just because you started
feeling better. It doesn't work that way. You have to take the pill
every single day. OK?
Claude D. Bilbo |
cbi...@mindspring.com | All of my opinions are
bilb...@eng.uab.edu | completely uncorrelated.
http://www.mindspring.com/~cbilbo/ |
Steve Daniels
> I want an Abrams. =)
You couldn't afford the gas. Or the insurance :).
Buckaroo Banzai
> I oversimplify? I quoted directly from pages 602 and the top of 603.
> It is described in the book as a souped up flashlight. It uses a
> xenon flashtube just like the flashgun on your camera.
I was referring to previous posts. (Pardon the following use of
vulgarity.) Dumbass.
> Excuse me but when everything but the power supply and the capacitor
> bank is revealed in DOH just what is there left to keep quiet about?
> I will give you the only possibility I can think of and that is the
> math that describes the exact shape of the reflector such that it has
> a distributed focus that subsumes the volume of the flashlamp.
> Just get out your copy of the book and start reading at the bottom of
> page 602.
1) Let me rephrase myself. I don't have copy of the book in front of me,
nor behind me, nor anywhere near me. I do not know of a copy (that won't
cost me more money than I can afford, i.e. $5+) within 150 miles of me.
2) In your quotation of the novel, you said that the "light-saber" was
*conceptually* no different from a souped-up flashlight. There is a
difference, as another member of the anti-Matt Giwer Fan Club pointed
out, between "same-as" and "conceptually no different." I believe the
analogy, excellently used, was between the V8 in a Dodge Viper and the
engine on a lawnmower. Conceptually no different, right?
Enough.
Buckaroo Banzai
Andrew Toppan
I've had enough of Giwer's ramblings. I just killfiled him :)
Matt Giwer
>mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>>sdan...@jeffnet.org (Steve Daniels) wrote:
>>>mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>>>> As I have said, we have been over all this and I have offered you a
>>>>public apology, you have not accepted it, I have no idea what more I
>>>>can do.
>>>Try falling on your sword.
>> Try reading about the souped up flashlight with magic properties.
>
>Mr. Giwer,
> You can't stop taking your medication just because you started
>feeling better. It doesn't work that way. You have to take the pill
>every single day. OK?
Page 602, last paragraph, hardback edition. Have someone read it to
you.
Matt Giwer
>On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> I oversimplify? I quoted directly from pages 602 and the top of 603.
>> It is described in the book as a souped up flashlight. It uses a
>> xenon flashtube just like the flashgun on your camera.
>I was referring to previous posts. (Pardon the following use of
>vulgarity.) Dumbass.
In which previous posts was there oversimplification? Please be
specific in your response.
>> Excuse me but when everything but the power supply and the capacitor
>> bank is revealed in DOH just what is there left to keep quiet about?
>> I will give you the only possibility I can think of and that is the
>> math that describes the exact shape of the reflector such that it has
>> a distributed focus that subsumes the volume of the flashlamp.
>> Just get out your copy of the book and start reading at the bottom of
>> page 602.
>1) Let me rephrase myself. I don't have copy of the book in front of me,
>nor behind me, nor anywhere near me. I do not know of a copy (that won't
>cost me more money than I can afford, i.e. $5+) within 150 miles of me.
Then you have no idea what you are talking about. So why are you
jumping in to this? Think you smell blood and want a bite?
>2) In your quotation of the novel, you said that the "light-saber" was
>*conceptually* no different from a souped-up flashlight. There is a
>difference, as another member of the anti-Matt Giwer Fan Club pointed
>out, between "same-as" and "conceptually no different." I believe the
>analogy, excellently used, was between the V8 in a Dodge Viper and the
>engine on a lawnmower. Conceptually no different, right?
And of course the V8 permits the car to fly, i.e. has magic
properties, where the other does not. The differences from a
"flashlight" are EXPLAINED in that same paragraph you are unable to
read for yourself.
In your example both are engines, one is more powerful. In the book
one is brighter. So where does unconsciousness come in with
brightness?
Russ Finley
TC, since it's named after him in the first place, is an expert on
anything in this thread. I've heard a response from one physician, who
talked about the anatomy and physiology of various nerve structures in
the head, and TC, whose idea this gizmo was in the first place (for the
purposes of the book, anyway... I'm not even going to get into whether
the thing is real or how it works or anything). The rest of us are just
a bunch of idiots with enough time on our hands that we can jabber on
about this arcane and esoteric crap for WEEKS.
The bottom line is this: TC mentioned a certain weapon in one of his
books. Somebody asked how it worked, and got an avalanche of totally
uninformed opinions (mine was one of the first, and I count myself lucky
not to be the ONLY pseudo-intellectual geek who dove into this
charlie-fox -- there is safety in numbers). We agree that the thing
uses light; that it could in some form exist (don't look at me like
that, Mr. Giwer; I believe even you admitted that something like it
could exist); that we don't understand the principle of its function or
efficacy; and that TC has a wonderful imagination (I consider that one a
given).
Otherwise, we're never going to agree on this, and I have gotten to the
point that I simply skim articles in this thread because of all the
mindless garbage we keep throwing around. It's starting to look a lot
like kindergarten in here.
Let's just agree to disagree and move on. If somebody wants to take a
few weeks and put together a thoroughly researched and properly cited
dissertation on this topic, go nuts -- it's all yours. But there HAS to
be something more interesting we can do besides tell each other that we
don't know what we're talking about. That seems pretty clear to me
already.
Russ
Matt Giwer
>Ummm, can we just drop this? Nobody in this group, possibly excepting
>TC, since it's named after him in the first place, is an expert on
>anything in this thread. I've heard a response from one physician, who
>talked about the anatomy and physiology of various nerve structures in
>the head, and TC, whose idea this gizmo was in the first place (for the
>purposes of the book, anyway... I'm not even going to get into whether
>the thing is real or how it works or anything). The rest of us are just
>a bunch of idiots with enough time on our hands that we can jabber on
>about this arcane and esoteric crap for WEEKS.
>The bottom line is this: TC mentioned a certain weapon in one of his
>books. Somebody asked how it worked, and got an avalanche of totally
>uninformed opinions (mine was one of the first, and I count myself lucky
>not to be the ONLY pseudo-intellectual geek who dove into this
>charlie-fox -- there is safety in numbers). We agree that the thing
>uses light; that it could in some form exist (don't look at me like
>that, Mr. Giwer; I believe even you admitted that something like it
>could exist); that we don't understand the principle of its function or
>efficacy; and that TC has a wonderful imagination (I consider that one a
>given).
Of course I would admit that a powerful flashlamp can exist. You can
see them on any TV tower. You can buy smaller versions. But Tom
Clancy's description of it is at variance with the description in DOH.
Excluding the pain and the co-pilot being able to look at it so
quickly (imaginative) the result in the book is simple night
blindness, quite expected from the description.
The "imaginative" explanation here is that a nerve which has no light
receptors is in some manner involved in causing unconsciousness, a
phenomanon never reported before in humans including cases of total
blindness caused by a nuclear explosion.
Whatever is being discussed they are NOT the same things, despite the
same Tom Clancy describing them.
>Otherwise, we're never going to agree on this, and I have gotten to the
>point that I simply skim articles in this thread because of all the
>mindless garbage we keep throwing around. It's starting to look a lot
>like kindergarten in here.
Then you won't read this and it won't bother you.
Matt Giwer
>In article <4ivms6$n...@wi.combase.com>, mgi...@combase.com says...
><snip>
>>
>> No obligation to tell us about a souped up flashlight? Of course
>not.
>>All of its secrets were revealed in DOH.
>> And we still have to ask why, when the subject was the light weapon
>in
>>DOH, that Tom Clancy was not familiar with his own description of it
>>in DOH when he described its functioning in this group?
>>
>Perhaps you need to read the book again, if you would read farther on in the
>book, it describes how at close range. In the paperback edition, on Page 842,
>it describes how the weapon, at close range, overloads the central nervous
>system. As described, a person hit with it fell to the floor like a rag doll.
Falls over on the floor of the cockpit? Falls over on the floor of
the desert? Please type it in for us in addition to the explanation.
In the hardback version it is used exactly twice. It sounds like you
are describing an entirely new scene.
>Specifically, as Mr. Clancy, and others have described in this newsgroup, it
>caused this via the Trigeminal nerve. I certainly don't know personally if
>this is the actual effect of such a light, but the book does describe it that
>way, so please, next time, get your facts straight.
The trigeminal nerve connects to no light sensitive cells. No one but
our Tom Clancy has given any description of the involvement of the
trigeminal nerve.
And this added scene is quite strange as in the hardback it is
described as a shoulder fired device and the idea of using it in a
room (as indicated by the floor) makes it an extraordinarily unweildy
weapon to the point of being unlikely, not to mention that the
person's retinas would certainly have been fried at that range given
that it is also effective at two kilometers (this range also from the
hardback version.)
So I will appreciate it if you can find the scene where the Japanse
surveillance plane is brought down and see if it has also been
modified from the hardback version.
Markus Nybom BKF
: Markus Nybom BKF reshaped the electrons to say:
:
: [snip stuff about it not really being Clancy. It *is* Clancy.
: This has been proved a multitude of times.]
No, the stuff was: we can't *prove* it's Clancy. I just happen to
believe it *is*. If you can prove it, please do.
: : P.S. Uh, what's this about a Sherman on TC's
: : lawn??
:
: His wife gave him a tank for his birthday (or was it Xmas?).
WHAT!?!? Gave him a tank?!? Imagine going down to your car salesman
saying "You see, I'd really like a small, peaceful tank for my husband, but
it's going to be a surprise, so please don't make a lot of fuzz about it." :)
Markus Nybom
Thomas Karl Gratz
Hi Len,
>FYI, the trigeminal (5th cranial) nerve, emerges from the lateral
>surfaces of the pons as a motor and a sensory root, together with some
>intermediate fibers. The sensory root expands into the trigeminal
>ganglion, which contains the cells of origin of most of the sensory
>fibers, and from which the three divisions of the nerve arise, the
>mandibular, maxillary and ophthalmic nerves. The trigeminal nerve is
>sensory in supplying the face, teeth, mouth and nasal cavity, and motor
>in supplying the muscles of mastication.
You are right here, but I don´t think you can refute Matt with this
anyway. The sensory portion of the trigeminal nerve only supplies pain
and touch receptors (and, of course the taste-sensors of your tongue,
wich aren´t of any interest here).
For the ophtalmic nerve (wich seems to be related with the optic organ
cause of his name-but isn´t really) that means, that here´s the device
that transmittes information about a *mechanical* touch of the most
superfical layer of the cornea to the brain. That, BTW, makes the reflex
that let you blink if something touches your eye, possible.
BUT, the ophtalmic nerve can not under any circumstances receive, carry
ore get damaged by any kind of *optical* input, it simply lacks the
device to recept them.
It´s sure possible to knock somebody out if you overload the tigeminus
*electrical*, but you have to stick needles in his face before..., even
then I would have to doubt if a single electrical burst could put you to
sleep for half an hour.
>Maybe you need a more up to date source of information before risking
>calling TC in error, especially when he checked it out with one of the
>leaders in the field.
Im sorry, but I think Matt´s statement (wich I support) is still not
proven false.
>There is an appropriate saying you might take into consideration, Matt:
>"It is better to say nothing and be thought a fool and to open your mouth
>and remove all doubt."
> Len Howard MD
hope it as of any interest for all of you, sorry about my english...
Thomas K. Gratz, MD
Fred McCall
:tomc...@aol.com (Tom Clancy) wrote:
:
:>Clancy makes one last remark on this issue:
:
:>I forgot to add that I am not fully convinced that this "light sabre," as
:>I call it, is truly safe. The issue is UV shielding, and possibly
:>permanent damage to the retina. Until that issue is resolved, the utility
:>of the device as a non-lethal weapon is, in my view, compromised.
:
: This from line matches the reply to line as opposed to the fake Tom
:Clancy who claimed to own one of these things. Are you claiming to be
:the one who posted the trigeminal message?
What the hell are you blithering about, Giwer? I've looked at the
headers in both articles and they both match.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
f...@onramp.net -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Fred McCall
:mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
:
:> But the device you described in the book is nothing more than a high
:>power photoflash that would be used for any camera. It is also is an
:>over the shoulder device. At 2 km (page 602) it causes such intense
:>pain that a pilots pull their hands off of the controls. 1 km that
:>will double, (inverse square) at half km it is four times, at 1/4 it
:>is 8 times, at 1/8 it is 16 times ... at personal confrontation
:>distances ... a lot more. Obviously a much small device would be
:>used then, called a flashgun available at any camera store; the souped
:>up flashlight of DOH.
:
:The inverse square law applies to a point source, like a light bulb. In
:which case, you give up effective range for a wide angle of attack. But
:for a focused light source, using a parabolic lens with a point source
:at it's focal point, the inverse square law does not apply. Now you have
:a very long range but a narrow angle of attack, as with a laser. Of
:course, you can't do this perfectly, and the precision with which you
:manufacture the device will limit it's range.
This isn't correct. You will still get inverse square effects from
focused light. 'Focused' is not the same as 'coherent' (i.e., laser).
In theory you could 'eliminate' inverse square effects if you could
manufacture a perfect parabolic reflector of infinite size. This is
obviously impossible (or would, at least, be much to large to carry
about :-)), so you will always see some inverse square effects.
William J Purosky
: rra...@tir.com (Richard Rapier) wrote:
: >In article <4ivms6$n...@wi.combase.com>, mgi...@combase.com says...
: ><snip>
: >Perhaps you need to read the book again, if you would read farther on in the
: >book, it describes how at close range. In the paperback edition, on Page 842,
: >it describes how the weapon, at close range, overloads the central nervous
: >system. As described, a person hit with it fell to the floor like a rag doll.
: Falls over on the floor of the cockpit? Falls over on the floor of
: the desert? Please type it in for us in addition to the explanation.
: In the hardback version it is used exactly twice. It sounds like you
: are describing an entirely new scene.
Falls over on the floor of Yamata's entranceway.
"...and then the energy overload invaded the man's central nervous
system along the trigeminal nerve, ... The effect as in Africa was
to overload the guard's nervous system. He fell to the floor like
a rag doll, his twitching right hand still grasping a pistol."
that's from page 842 in paperback.
Also on page 853: Koga recalls:
"The one outside the door had been alive when they'd walked over
his body, moaning and shuddering as though from electric shocks,
but definitely alive."
Sounds like exactly what TC described on this NG.
Checkerboard Man
Andrew Toppan
: No, the stuff was: we can't *prove* it's Clancy. I just happen to
: believe it *is*. If you can prove it, please do.
I see no need to prove it. We had a long discussion of this a couple
years ago, and everyone involved was satisfied that it really was TC.
I'm not going to restart that argument.
: WHAT!?!? Gave him a tank?!?
Yeah, a tank. M-4 Sherman, WWII era.
davi...@uvic.ca
>man...@news.abo.fi (Markus Nybom BKF) wrote:
>
>> I want an Abrams. =)
>
>You couldn't afford the gas. Or the insurance :).
Insurance? just go down to your local insurance agent and
point the cannon at their door, they will give ya free insurance.
But Tom don't need to do that, he have enough $$$ to buy
all the insurance that Tank will ever need, and you know, he
WAS a insurance agent :)
davi...@uvic.ca
>Matt, you have made the error of assuming that this weapon is a souped up
>flashlight. Yet your quote from the book clearly states that it is
>*conceptually* nothing more than a souped up flashlight. Big difference.
>One could say that the solid fuel rocket boosters for the space shuttle
>are conceptually nothing more than souped up model rockets, of the variety
>that can be aquired at just about any hobby store. Now Matt, if you can
>get a telecomunications satellite into orbit using only parts purchased at
>a hobby shop, then I'll believe that this weapon can be made from parts
>availible at any camera shop.
>
>Now, your comparison between the xenon-arc bulb in DoH and a camera
>flash, leaves much to be desired. Yes, they are both light sources, and
>they both have xenon. Does this mean that they are the same? Lets
>see... my lawn mower has an engine, and a Dodge Viper has an engine. And
>wow, they both run on gasoline! Does this mean that my lawn mower can
>leave just about any car behind at a stop light? You do the math.
Exactly, as Xenon are also used in X-Ray laser (currently in development
phase), let see, my camera use a somewhat powerful flashlight, does that
mean I can make holograms of living cells?
davi...@uvic.ca
>On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>> I oversimplify? I quoted directly from pages 602 and the top of 603.
>> It is described in the book as a souped up flashlight. It uses a
>> xenon flashtube just like the flashgun on your camera.
>
>I was referring to previous posts. (Pardon the following use of
>vulgarity.) Dumbass.
>
>> bank is revealed in DOH just what is there left to keep quiet about?
>> I will give you the only possibility I can think of and that is the
>> math that describes the exact shape of the reflector such that it has
>> a distributed focus that subsumes the volume of the flashlamp.
>> Just get out your copy of the book and start reading at the bottom of
>> page 602.
>
>1) Let me rephrase myself. I don't have copy of the book in front of me,
>nor behind me, nor anywhere near me. I do not know of a copy (that won't
>cost me more money than I can afford, i.e. $5+) within 150 miles of me.
>
>*conceptually* no different from a souped-up flashlight. There is a
>difference, as another member of the anti-Matt Giwer Fan Club pointed
>out, between "same-as" and "conceptually no different." I believe the
>analogy, excellently used, was between the V8 in a Dodge Viper and the
>engine on a lawnmower. Conceptually no different, right?
Ah! no offence, but Dodge fans might start blasting you for saying that
Viper had lost 2 cylanders, it is a V-10.... But, what the heck....
Let's make it more different, take a Ford Indigo's V-12 and compare it
to a 4 cycle model engine. They are all gasoline, They are all 4 cycle, they
are engines with piston(s), and their exhause fume is nothing to be desired,
so they aren't really that different, or do they? except the V-12 produces
400+HP and LB/f, and the model engine is barely producing 5 hp with a
single cylander. So you can possibly scale up the model engine, stick 12 of
them together and stick it into a car, then go around to smoke your friends
at a stop light? Think not....
BTW: I wanna be in the anti-Matt Giwer Fan Club..... What's the membership
fee? :)
w...@direct.ca
>Just like if you are lightly tapped on the head, it CAN
>cause brain damage, and permanent degradation of hearing can
>result from standing to close to explosions etc (Just ask
>William Shatner)
A big "SLAP" in the ear will do enough harm, just ask someone
else also called "Tom", Tomas Edison... :) If you can "talk" to
him.... :)
Buckaroo Banzai
> Buckaroo Banzai <kle...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:
>
> >> I oversimplify? I quoted directly from pages 602 and the top of 603.
> >> It is described in the book as a souped up flashlight. It uses a
> >> xenon flashtube just like the flashgun on your camera.
>
> >I was referring to previous posts. (Pardon the following use of
> >vulgarity.) Dumbass.
>
> In which previous posts was there oversimplification? Please be
> specific in your response.
18 Mar, 1996 (Thread: PRC v. Taiwan)
And I quote:
"Slavery was sanctioned by the Bible. It was an amazingly atheistic step
for the country."
That is what is commonly known as an oversimplification. I responded
duly, since I found the comment to be not only offensive but extremely
wrong as well. (If anyone would like the rebuttal I sent to Mr. Giwer
privately, so as not to take up NG bandwidth, e-mail me and I'll fwd you
a copy.) He has, as of yet, not responded, so I can assume he admits he
was wrong.
> >1) Let me rephrase myself. I don't have copy of the book in front of me,
> >nor behind me, nor anywhere near me. I do not know of a copy (that won't
> >cost me more money than I can afford, i.e. $5+) within 150 miles of me.
>
> Then you have no idea what you are talking about. So why are you
> jumping in to this? Think you smell blood and want a bite?
I was responding to what was said on the NG. Though I may have said
things "like in the book," I was referring to what other people had said
was in the book.
> >analogy, excellently used, was between the V8 in a Dodge Viper and the
^^
My apologies to David Wei and Dodge Viper fans everywhere.
> And of course the V8 permits the car to fly, i.e. has magic
> properties, where the other does not. The differences from a
> "flashlight" are EXPLAINED in that same paragraph you are unable to
> read for yourself.
> In your example both are engines, one is more powerful. In the book
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I must respectfully disagree. Many features inclusive with the Viper's
engine seem quite magical when compared to a lawnmower. Fuel injection,
alternator, and electrical ignition, to name a few.
> one is brighter. So where does unconsciousness come in with
> brightness?
I dunno. I'll leave that to the MDs.
But I'm tired of this thread. I'm going to agree with some of the others
and say we should kill this since Giwer's the only one trying to keep it
alive. Face it Giwer, if Clancy hasn't provided the info you are asking
for by now, he ain't gonna do it. Perhaps your aim is for the whole NG
to bow down to you and proclaim you GOD. Maybe you would like us to
rename the NG alt.gods.matt.giwer . The citation I made above seems to
cancel out that little possibility. So buzz off and let this drop.
Buckaroo Banzai
Matt Giwer
>mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>:tomc...@aol.com (Tom Clancy) wrote:
>:
>:>Clancy makes one last remark on this issue:
>:
>:>I forgot to add that I am not fully convinced that this "light sabre," as
>:>I call it, is truly safe. The issue is UV shielding, and possibly
>:>permanent damage to the retina. Until that issue is resolved, the utility
>:>of the device as a non-lethal weapon is, in my view, compromised.
>:
>: This from line matches the reply to line as opposed to the fake Tom
>:Clancy who claimed to own one of these things. Are you claiming to be
>:the one who posted the trigeminal message?
>What the hell are you blithering about, Giwer? I've looked at the
>headers in both articles and they both match.
Your reading ability perhaps? The from line and the reply to line of
course.
Matt Giwer
>On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Buckaroo Banzai <kle...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>> >> I oversimplify? I quoted directly from pages 602 and the top of 603.
>> >> It is described in the book as a souped up flashlight. It uses a
>> >> xenon flashtube just like the flashgun on your camera.
>>
>> >I was referring to previous posts. (Pardon the following use of
>> >vulgarity.) Dumbass.
>>
>> In which previous posts was there oversimplification? Please be
>> specific in your response.
>18 Mar, 1996 (Thread: PRC v. Taiwan)
>And I quote:
>"Slavery was sanctioned by the Bible. It was an amazingly atheistic step
>for the country."
>That is what is commonly known as an oversimplification. I responded
>duly, since I found the comment to be not only offensive but extremely
>wrong as well. (If anyone would like the rebuttal I sent to Mr. Giwer
>privately, so as not to take up NG bandwidth, e-mail me and I'll fwd you
>a copy.) He has, as of yet, not responded, so I can assume he admits he
>was wrong.
And even further, you took it as a serious comment when the point was
merely that standards change over time.
>> >1) Let me rephrase myself. I don't have copy of the book in front of me,
>> >nor behind me, nor anywhere near me. I do not know of a copy (that won't
>> >cost me more money than I can afford, i.e. $5+) within 150 miles of me.
>>
>> Then you have no idea what you are talking about. So why are you
>> jumping in to this? Think you smell blood and want a bite?
>I was responding to what was said on the NG. Though I may have said
>things "like in the book," I was referring to what other people had said
>was in the book.
It appears I am the only person who bothered to compare the posted
description to the book.
>> >analogy, excellently used, was between the V8 in a Dodge Viper and the
> ^^
>My apologies to David Wei and Dodge Viper fans everywhere.
>> And of course the V8 permits the car to fly, i.e. has magic
>> properties, where the other does not. The differences from a
>> "flashlight" are EXPLAINED in that same paragraph you are unable to
>> read for yourself.
>> In your example both are engines, one is more powerful. In the book
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I must respectfully disagree. Many features inclusive with the Viper's
>engine seem quite magical when compared to a lawnmower. Fuel injection,
>alternator, and electrical ignition, to name a few.
>> one is brighter. So where does unconsciousness come in with
>> brightness?
>I dunno. I'll leave that to the MDs.
Where does it come from when people have been blinded as in
permanently from bright light and no unconsciousness reported? I have
found a nest of biologists in talk.origins and have posted the
question there. Perhaps there will be some answers. But I have no
idea why you think an MD would know the answer.
>But I'm tired of this thread. I'm going to agree with some of the others
>and say we should kill this since Giwer's the only one trying to keep it
>alive. Face it Giwer, if Clancy hasn't provided the info you are asking
>for by now, he ain't gonna do it. Perhaps your aim is for the whole NG
>to bow down to you and proclaim you GOD. Maybe you would like us to
>rename the NG alt.gods.matt.giwer . The citation I made above seems to
>cancel out that little possibility. So buzz off and let this drop.
>Buckaroo Banzai
You still haven't gotten over my observation about your stupid handle
have you.
But then you could have let this drop instead of trying to get in the
last word by telling me to let it drop. Where have I seen this
before?
w...@direct.ca
>: : P.S. Uh, what's this about a Sherman on TC's
>: : lawn??
>:
>: His wife gave him a tank for his birthday (or was it Xmas?).
>
> WHAT!?!? Gave him a tank?!? Imagine going down to your car salesman
>saying "You see, I'd really like a small, peaceful tank for my husband, but
>it's going to be a surprise, so please don't make a lot of fuzz about it." :)
I don't know if GM, Ford, Chrysler, or AM General have them for ordering, or
if we import them from Japan, Russia, Europe, etc.... :) Guess she uses Tom's
"connection" in Army to order one :) Better get back to see if I reached
1/10% of the goal in my Apache Longbow fund :) This sucker sure SCARE
a lot of the floating and crawling stuff we see :)
w...@direct.ca
>This isn't correct. You will still get inverse square effects from
>focused light. 'Focused' is not the same as 'coherent' (i.e., laser).
>In theory you could 'eliminate' inverse square effects if you could
>manufacture a perfect parabolic reflector of infinite size. This is
>obviously impossible (or would, at least, be much to large to carry
>about :-)), so you will always see some inverse square effects.
The reason it won't apply is that you have a distance of focus, which
did not fit into the laws of inverse square, and after the point of
focus, the light SPREAD at a predetermined rate, dictated by the
shape of the foucsing device, it CAN fit prefectly into the law of
inverse square, and it can also break it.
Claude D. Bilbo
>This isn't correct. You will still get inverse square effects from
>focused light. 'Focused' is not the same as 'coherent' (i.e., laser).
>In theory you could 'eliminate' inverse square effects if you could
>manufacture a perfect parabolic reflector of infinite size. This is
>obviously impossible (or would, at least, be much to large to carry
>about :-)), so you will always see some inverse square effects.
I know you can't focus the light perfectly. The light will spread
with distance, but not according to the inverse square law. Coherent
just means the light is in-phase.
I'm too lazy to do any math, but I believe when you'd observe the
'focused' beam from a distance, you'd see an inverse square relation-
ship, with the 'apparent' point source located some distance behind
your flashlight. The further, the better. :)
>--
>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
> live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>f...@onramp.net -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Claude D. Bilbo |
Claude D. Bilbo
> Where does it come from when people have been blinded as in
>permanently from bright light and no unconsciousness reported? I have
>found a nest of biologists in talk.origins and have posted the
>question there. Perhaps there will be some answers. But I have no
>idea why you think an MD would know the answer.
Biologists are no doubt fine people, but you should really look for a
nest of physiologists. Physiologists are the experts for this type of
question. Not all MDs are experts in physiology just because they had
the coursework. (A few of us engineering types have taken physiology
too, but don't know the right answer. :-) )
Joshua W. Burton
>
> >This isn't correct. You will still get inverse square effects from
> >focused light. 'Focused' is not the same as 'coherent' (i.e., laser).
> >In theory you could 'eliminate' inverse square effects if you could
> >manufacture a perfect parabolic reflector of infinite size. This is
> >obviously impossible (or would, at least, be much to large to carry
> >about :-)), so you will always see some inverse square effects.
>
> I know you can't focus the light perfectly. The light will spread
> with distance, but not according to the inverse square law. Coherent
> just means the light is in-phase.
>
> I'm too lazy to do any math, but I believe when you'd observe the
> 'focused' beam from a distance, you'd see an inverse square relation-
> ship, with the 'apparent' point source located some distance behind
> your flashlight. The further, the better. :)
You're both sort of right. The coherence of light has nothing to do
with the matter: a well-collimated flashlight and a laser of the
same aperture will both have the same angular spread. This spread
will equal the ratio of the wavelength to the aperture (times 1.22
if you use the Rayleigh criterion to measure the size of the
diffraction spot). Thus a 1 cm pocket flash _or_ laser giving off
0.00005 cm light will have at least 1/20000 divergence, for a 5 cm
spot at a kilometer, 5 meters at 100 kilometers, and so on. Since
the intensity is measured per unit area, this gives the usual inverse
square dependence. Closer in than 200 meters, the diffraction spot is
smaller than the aperture itself, so for minimum spot size you want
a beam that actually converges slightly on the observer, using an
elliptical reflector instead of a parabolic one. In this case, we
are no longer treating the reflector as a point source, so the
inverse square relation no longer applies.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`The white page can be overwritten, and the white light can be broken.'
`In which case it is no longer white. And he that breaks a ..:
thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.' /\ ..:::::
+------------------------------------------------------+ / \ ..:::::::::
| Joshua W Burton (847)677-3902 jbu...@nwu.edu |....../::::\:::::::::::
+------------------------------------------------------+ /______\
Szu-yuan Huang
Don't forget to get a firearms permit. 8)
--
Mike Huang
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Software Engineer, AC6000CW Locomotive Control System (814)875-3207
GE Transportation Systems, Erie, PA hu...@crypt.erie.ge.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** GETS and I do not speak on each other's behalf ***
===============================================================================
Michael Crawford
: Clancy responds to Giwer as follows (again).
<snip>
: Mr. Giwer says that the trigeminal nerve cannot damage the eye. He's
: correct. It would seem, however, that he did not read my previous post
: correctly. Mr. Giwer, I do not know who your problem is, but why not crack
: open a law book and annoy John Gresham? I'm sure you met him once, too.
: TC
Haha! That was pretty good. Go after Grisham...he deserves it...
--
----------------
Michael A. Crawford
craw...@email.unc.edu
davi...@uvic.ca
>> >analogy, excellently used, was between the V8 in a Dodge Viper and the
> ^^
>My apologies to David Wei and Dodge Viper fans everywhere.
You don't need to say that to me.... I'm more of a fan of Ford's 6 Litre V-12
and Modular 4.6L/5.4L V-8, much cheaper, and using better technology,
rahter than BRUTE FORCE displacement enlargement. Also in theory,
SOHC/DOHC are better than pushrod, wonder when can I get those turbo-shafts
in my car, of course, I don't want import turbo-shafts, GE's is pretty good, PW's
engine also sounds pretty good :)
-----------------------------------------------------------
He/She who insist on imperfect safety doesn't have
the wit to make it safe enough. --David Wei (ME)
(Remember NASA's O-ring with Space Shuttle Challenger?)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bailey
the electronic soapbox and said:
>I've had enough of Giwer's ramblings. I just killfiled him :)
I'm jealous. Agent doesn't have Killfiles yet! But when it does.... :)
Jeff Bailey
bail...@ix.netcom.com
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/1536/
Matt Giwer
>Tom Clancy (tomc...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Clancy responds to Giwer as follows (again).
><snip>
>: Mr. Giwer says that the trigeminal nerve cannot damage the eye. He's
>: correct. It would seem, however, that he did not read my previous post
>: correctly. Mr. Giwer, I do not know who your problem is, but why not crack
>: open a law book and annoy John Gresham? I'm sure you met him once, too.
>: TC
>Haha! That was pretty good. Go after Grisham...he deserves it...
If you are ever willing or able to read english correctly you will
note that I have posted a greater knowledge of DOH than this Tom
Clancy.
Fine with me. This is the real Tom Clancy but then this real Tom
Clancy never read his own books.
I find that difficult to explain.
w...@direct.ca
>In article <4j4s1f$2s...@uvaix3e1.comp.UVic.CA>, davi...@uvic.ca writes:
>
>>In <4j06rs$i...@mars.efn.org>, sdan...@jeffnet.org (Steve Daniels) writes:
>>>man...@news.abo.fi (Markus Nybom BKF) wrote:
>
>>>> I want an Abrams. =)
>
>>>You couldn't afford the gas. Or the insurance :).
>
>>Insurance? just go down to your local insurance agent and
>>point the cannon at their door, they will give ya free insurance.
>>But Tom don't need to do that, he have enough $$$ to buy
>>all the insurance that Tank will ever need, and you know, he
>>WAS a insurance agent :)
>
>Don't forget to get a firearms permit. 8)
no worry, just go down to the local firearms agency and do EXACTLY
the same thing, load the cannon with HE+Fragment shell, AIM
precsiely, and ask them "politely" for a permit through the loud speaker
mounted on your tank (yes! customizing your tanks and cars... :) )
As long as you keep the ammo storage bay full, you will enjoy FULL
SERVICE of just about everything, including full service bank robbery,
having the bank teller delivering the money, rather than the traditional
"take away" type :) Or getting a insurance, permit, pay check, and
many many more, but I prefer doing it with *slightly* BETTER speed,
a AH-64D or EuroCopter Tigre would do nicely :)
Markus Nybom BKF
: In article <4j4s1f$2s...@uvaix3e1.comp.UVic.CA>, davi...@uvic.ca writes:
:
: >In <4j06rs$i...@mars.efn.org>, sdan...@jeffnet.org (Steve Daniels) writes:
: >>man...@news.abo.fi (Markus Nybom BKF) wrote:
:
: >>> I want an Abrams. =)
:
: >>You couldn't afford the gas. Or the insurance :).
:
: >Insurance? just go down to your local insurance agent and
: >point the cannon at their door, they will give ya free insurance.
: >But Tom don't need to do that, he have enough $$$ to buy
: >all the insurance that Tank will ever need, and you know, he
: >WAS a insurance agent :)
:
: Don't forget to get a firearms permit. 8)
Changing tires, uh, treads, for the winter might be an exhausting
expereience. But you really have an advantage in traffic jams. (CRUNCH!) :)
Markus
Uncle Anti-go Nish
be possible that the mind shuts down to protect it self. I am no
physician, and don't really know about the eye, besides the physics of
the thing. I know big matt is probably going to flame me for suggesting
this, but oh well. I do know that if you glace at the sun there can be
minor discomfort from the eye trying to adjust. perhaps if the light was
bright enough, it would cause immense pain, cause sensory overload, and
therefore unconciousness.
The C-172 may look like a milk truck, but I can fly it and you can't.
[1;32;40m [5;35m Shane "Uncle Anti-go Nish" MacLeod [0;32m
x94...@juliet.stfx.ca
http://juliet.stfx.ca/people/stu/x94baj/welcome.html
"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth!"
w...@direct.ca
Do you think those people are going to drive in the same place as you do??
Think not, at least they have "some" intellgence that allow them to understand
that it is a very bad thing to get close to a fellow driver's tank, and even
worse to be roll overed by them :).
Ah! no Farreri/Porsche/Lambo/hot rod driver will EVER DARE to over take you,
no matter how slow you drive, just keep the HE shell loaded and readied, NO
ONE will DARE to get close. You can also help those people who got locked
out of their home by sticking the main gun barrel THROUGH their door.... :)
w...@direct.ca
>: >>> I want an Abrams. =)
>:
>: >>You couldn't afford the gas. Or the insurance :).
>:
>: >Insurance? just go down to your local insurance agent and
>: >point the cannon at their door, they will give ya free insurance.
>: >But Tom don't need to do that, he have enough $$$ to buy
>: >all the insurance that Tank will ever need, and you know, he
>: >WAS a insurance agent :)
>:
>: Don't forget to get a firearms permit. 8)
>
> Changing tires, uh, treads, for the winter might be an exhausting
>expereience.
Oh, forgot to say, that with steel threads, you DON'T need to change
it in the winter, since the steel threads really BITES into the ground,
and with about 40 to 50 tons of weight, you can melt the snow by the
pressure alone....
Ogden Johnson III
: WHAT!?!? Gave him a tank?!? Imagine going down to your car salesman
: saying "You see, I'd really like a small, peaceful tank for my husband, but
: it's going to be a surprise, so please don't make a lot of fuzz about it." :)
Interarmco in Alexandria, VA [5 blocks east and 10 blocks south from
where I write this] is less than 50 miles from the Clancy residence.
I've been there [thanks to a couple of friends who are long time
Alexandria residents and former Interarmco employees], and can assure you
that would be quite happy to provide a legal, surplus tank at an
appropriate price [probably discounted for the Clancys].
w...@direct.ca
>On 23 Mar 1996 17:23:20 GMT, el...@wpi.edu (Andrew Toppan) stood on
>the electronic soapbox and said:
>
>>I've had enough of Giwer's ramblings. I just killfiled him :)
>
>I'm jealous. Agent doesn't have Killfiles yet! But when it does.... :)
What agent??? Russian Agent in US? British Agent? CIA Agent?
Insurance Agent? :)
Markus Nybom BKF
: If you are ever willing or able to read english correctly you will
: note that I have posted a greater knowledge of DOH than this Tom
: Clancy.
: Fine with me. This is the real Tom Clancy but then this real Tom
: Clancy never read his own books.
: I find that difficult to explain.
Matt,
You haven't been reading this conference for an awful long
time, I gather. Tom Clancy has written several (and that's an understatement)
extremely interesting articles to this conference. They are very accurate when it comes to technology and show a great knowledge of history and politics. (My favourite
was the one in which he explained the outcome of the battle of Trafalgar
largely as a result of superior techonology.) He is, at all times, very
informed on matters related to his books. Clearly he will err at times, noone
can be an expert in all the different areas found in his books. Of your above
remark I have found no evidence (on the other hand, I haven't looked). If this
is a fake TC, he manages to be remarkably like the real TC.
Now, do you really believe that Tom Clancy, who has a computer (Mac),
and I'd be damned if he couldn't afford Internet-access, wouldn't have checked
up all conferences includind his name in the header? And that he wouldn't
by now, have noticed that there is someone else writing in his name, out here?
There is no way we're going to prove this IS Clancy (except if he puts a
suitable remark somewhere in the next book) and trying to prove it ISN'T is
beginning to ruin this conference, in my humble opinion.
I don't know what has been going on between you two on private
mail channels, but you have surely noticed that sniping at TC all the time
only gains you hostility. Don't you think it would be a smart move to quit?
Markus
Uncle Anti-go Nish
north that some of you may be interested in. On of the heads of our
security service, CSIS, is rumoured to have been a Russian spy. HOw
about that!!
Mark C. Hunter
>HEre's a little something from the recent news up here in the cold white
>north that some of you may be interested in. On of the heads of our
>security service, CSIS, is rumoured to have been a Russian spy. HOw
>about that!!
The report, if we are talking about the same thing, is from a Reform Party
Member. The Reform Party and CSIS have had several run-ins the past few
years. CSIS was investigating possible neo-Nazi connections with the
Reform Party at one time, so one has to question the motives of Reform
for this attack, true or otherwise. But other than mentioning it in
passing, I will not touch that issue with a ten foot pole :)
According to the news I have read, the matter was investigated by SIRC,
the Security Intelligence Review Committee, and they appearently did not
find anything to substanciate the claim(s). Although, CBC News - I think
- has reported that a former translator left the agency recently after
encountering financial problems. So that could have been the mole ... but
no charges have been laid to the best of my knowledge.
Any intelligence agency, one would hope, would take seriously any claims
of a mole among them, and take the proper measures to investigate and
deal with the problem. One would hope it has been, or is being, properly
dealt with, whether it was a high ranking official or not.
Mark C. Hunter
mhu...@plato.ucs.mun.ca
http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~mhunter
P.S. Excure any spelling mistakes, I am sitting at a dumb terminal. :)
Steve White
> If you are ever willing or able to read english correctly you will
> note that I have posted a greater knowledge of DOH than this Tom
> Clancy.
> Fine with me. This is the real Tom Clancy but then this real Tom
> Clancy never read his own books.
> I find that difficult to explain.
Mr. Clancy has written a number of books, and I don't find it difficult to
imagine that he might forget a small factoid or two in a book from time to
time.
The real question is, why do you care so much, and why are you making such
a big deal out of this? Move on.
steve
Steve Daniels
>In <4j3lu2$k...@josie.abo.fi>, man...@news.abo.fi (Markus Nybom BKF) writes:
>>: : P.S. Uh, what's this about a Sherman on TC's
>>: : lawn??
>>:
>>: His wife gave him a tank for his birthday (or was it Xmas?).
>>
>> WHAT!?!? Gave him a tank?!? Imagine going down to your car salesman
>>saying "You see, I'd really like a small, peaceful tank for my husband, but
>>it's going to be a surprise, so please don't make a lot of fuzz about it." :)
Well, sure. I'm a plankowner on a Perry class frigate, I ought to be
able to own one. 'Course, if my wife could buy me one, there is a
hell of a lot of stuff she's been hiden' from me :).
--
sdan...@jeffnet.org Love me,
Windr...@aol.com Love my dog.
Andrew Toppan
Is Giwer *still* whining about a "bogus" Tom Clancy? What a moron.
[he's residing in my killfile]
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- el...@confusion.net
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage -- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
Matt Giwer
>Is Giwer *still* whining about a "bogus" Tom Clancy? What a moron.
>[he's residing in my killfile]
If you had managed to figure out how to maks a kilfile work you could
not have posted this message. Not everyone is as stupid as you.
Geoff Gass
>
>>[he's residing in my killfile]
>
> If you had managed to figure out how to maks a kilfile work you could
>not have posted this message. Not everyone is as stupid as you.
If you understood a damn thing about killfiles, you would have realized that
he's not getting your messages, he's getting people's replies to your messages
and seeing your rants of idiocy.
Geoff Gass
g...@nwu.edu
William J Purosky
: > If you are ever willing or able to read english correctly you will
: > note that I have posted a greater knowledge of DOH than this Tom
: > Clancy.
: > Fine with me. This is the real Tom Clancy but then this real Tom
: > Clancy never read his own books.
: > I find that difficult to explain.
: Mr. Clancy has written a number of books, and I don't find it difficult to
: imagine that he might forget a small factoid or two in a book from time to
: time.
He didn't forget anything in this case. Giwer is conveniently overlooking
the scene where Clark and Chavez render Yamata'a door guard unconcious to
bolster his own argument.
Checkerboard Man
Fred McCall
:f...@onramp.net (Fred McCall) wrote:
:
:>mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
:
:>:tomc...@aol.com (Tom Clancy) wrote:
:>:
:>:>Clancy makes one last remark on this issue:
:>:
:>:>I forgot to add that I am not fully convinced that this "light sabre," as
:>:>I call it, is truly safe. The issue is UV shielding, and possibly
:>:>permanent damage to the retina. Until that issue is resolved, the utility
:>:>of the device as a non-lethal weapon is, in my view, compromised.
:>:
:>: This from line matches the reply to line as opposed to the fake Tom
:>:Clancy who claimed to own one of these things. Are you claiming to be
:>:the one who posted the trigeminal message?
:
:>What the hell are you blithering about, Giwer? I've looked at the
:>headers in both articles and they both match.
:
: Your reading ability perhaps? The from line and the reply to line of
:course.
Read what I said, Giwer. I looked at the articles you're talking
about. The From and Reply-To headers were the same in both articles
and they matched.
So what are you talking about?
Fred McCall
:In <31557cb7...@news.onramp.net>, f...@onramp.net (Fred McCall) writes:
:>This isn't correct. You will still get inverse square effects from
:>focused light. 'Focused' is not the same as 'coherent' (i.e., laser).
:>In theory you could 'eliminate' inverse square effects if you could
:>manufacture a perfect parabolic reflector of infinite size. This is
:>obviously impossible (or would, at least, be much to large to carry
:>about :-)), so you will always see some inverse square effects.
:
:The reason it won't apply is that you have a distance of focus, which
:did not fit into the laws of inverse square, and after the point of
:focus, the light SPREAD at a predetermined rate, dictated by the
:shape of the foucsing device, it CAN fit prefectly into the law of
:inverse square, and it can also break it.
If this were true, you could make a laser weapon only through the use
of a very high power light and a paraboloid reflector. That "the
light SPREAD" part you mention IS an inverse-square effect. The only
difference is what you say the effective power at the source is.
Needless to say, you can't make such a 'laser'. Sorry the laws of
physics aren't amenable to your argument.
Allen Uutala
f...@onramp.net (Fred McCall) writes:
>mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>:f...@onramp.net (Fred McCall) wrote:
>:
>:>mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>:
>:>What the hell are you blithering about, Giwer? I've looked at the
>:>headers in both articles and they both match.
>:
>: Your reading ability perhaps? The from line and the reply to line of
>:course.
>Read what I said, Giwer. I looked at the articles you're talking
>about. The From and Reply-To headers were the same in both articles
>and they matched.
>So what are you talking about?
I recall when Giwer originally made his claim about the from and reply to
lines not matching on a clancy post. I checked, and as Fred says, they were
exactly the same. Obviously, either there was a glitch in Giwer's screen,
newsreader, whatever, or Giwer is telling a lie.
-------------------------------------------
Al Uutala, Queen's Univ., Kingston, Ontario
uut...@biology.queensu.ca
Mike Enderby
> HEre's a little something from the recent news up here in the cold white
> north that some of you may be interested in. On of the heads of our
> security service, CSIS, is rumoured to have been a Russian spy. HOw
> about that!!
Sounds like Peter Wright's book, "Spycatcher" where one of the heads
of MI5 was believed to be a Russian spy (Roger Hollis).
--
Mike Enderby
http://spodbox.linux.org.uk/~ultrasnd
http://www.interpages.co.uk - mi...@interpages.co.uk
He who has imagination without learning has wings but no feet.
Fred McCall
:Matt Giwer wrote:
:
:blah, blah, blah... lots of crap deleted.
:
:Tom, if you get your hands on the working light weapon, point it Matt's way!
But be sure to shove it somewhere where he has no light receptors
first, just so he can have a demonstration.
Fred McCall
:sdan...@jeffnet.org (Steve Daniels) wrote:
:
:>mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
:
:>> As I have said, we have been over all this and I have offered you a
:>>public apology, you have not accepted it, I have no idea what more I
:>>can do.
:
:>Try falling on your sword.
:
: Try reading about the souped up flashlight with magic properties.
Been there. Done that. See page 651 of the hardcover DoH.
Will you fall on your sword now?
Fred McCall
:craw...@email.unc.edu (Michael Crawford) wrote:
:
:>Tom Clancy (tomc...@aol.com) wrote:
:>: Clancy responds to Giwer as follows (again).
:
:><snip>
:>: Mr. Giwer says that the trigeminal nerve cannot damage the eye. He's
:>: correct. It would seem, however, that he did not read my previous post
:>: correctly. Mr. Giwer, I do not know who your problem is, but why not crack
:>: open a law book and annoy John Gresham? I'm sure you met him once, too.
:
:>: TC
:
:>Haha! That was pretty good. Go after Grisham...he deserves it...
:
: If you are ever willing or able to read english correctly you will
:note that I have posted a greater knowledge of DOH than this Tom
:Clancy.
: Fine with me. This is the real Tom Clancy but then this real Tom
:Clancy never read his own books.
: I find that difficult to explain.
You will find it less difficult to explain after you read p651 of DoH.
As usual, Giwer, you're on your ass.