Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

E-Shotgun

e-shotgun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 152 posts

Re: E-Shotgun

#111

Post by Blammar »

jaggederest wrote: post #32
Blammar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LED flashlights don't go up to 100k lumens to my knowledge. If you need extreme intensity, you'll have to use a solid state laser. A 10w handheld laser would be an effective defense, but you should wear bandstop glasses at the laser frequency. A beam spreader would also make it easier to aim and still nearly as effective.

This little fella here: https://www.imalentlight.com/imalent-ms18-led-flashlight-cre...

That's marketing hype. From the CREE datasheet at https://cree-led.com/media/documents/ds-XHP702.pdf, each LED runs between 1500 to 2000 lumens.

That flashlight has 18 LEDs, so 36k lumens at the most.

Also, for the rated brightness, each LED has to be run at 12VDC 2.4 amps or ~30 watts. The thing has 8 21700 cells at ~3.7v each 4Ah. So the cells are probably wired in a 2x4 configuration giving 7.5v and a total of 32Ah. Current draw for the LEDs is higher at lower voltage, so it's 12/7.5*2.4A = ~3.8A per LED or ~70 amps total draw. So yeah the numbers show it's feasible to run the 18 cells at full current for about 25 minutes and get the 36k lumens.

The heat dissipation will be about half a kilowatt, so quite likely the flashlight will get too hot to hold fairly quickly, even with its heat-pipe cooling.

I'm not an EE, I'm just channeling my long ago physics class on circuitry, so I could be egregiously wrong in places.

Re: E-Shotgun

#112

Post by Blammar »

sgt wrote: post #34
Blammar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LED flashlights don't go up to 100k lumens to my knowledge. If you need extreme intensity, you'll have to use a solid state laser. A 10w handheld laser would be an effective defense, but you should wear bandstop glasses at the laser frequency. A beam spreader would also make it easier to aim and still nearly as effective.

Somehow I feel it's more humane to kill an intruder than to blind him.

Both are terrible things to do. However, doing the second may be more of a deterrence in the long run.

On the gripping hand, holding a laser potentially makes you more of a target than if you use a flash-suppressing sniper rifle.

It's best not to be in the situation in the first place.

Re: E-Shotgun

#113

Post by datameta »

mantaraygun wrote: post #82

Why is it called a shotgun? It shoots little discs, not shot.

Looks like at 3000rpm, the 50 round mag will impact the target within human reaction time, in a spread similar to a shotgun's.

Re: E-Shotgun

#114

Post by selfhoster11 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #80
selfhoster11 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also problematic for another reason: the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change even when said regime is resistant to verbal criticism. Lethal means would be required to safeguard that.

You're going to get a lot of pushback on that without evidence.

That seems to be an oft-repeated argument, that may or may not be true but is certainly believed by some and is therefore relevant here. I don't personally care.

Re: E-Shotgun

#115

Post by mensetmanusman »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #80
selfhoster11 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also problematic for another reason: the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change even when said regime is resistant to verbal criticism. Lethal means would be required to safeguard that.

You're going to get a lot of pushback on that without evidence.

From Britannica:

“ The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, was proposed by James Madison to allow the creation of civilian forces that can counteract a tyrannical federal government. “

This seems to be what OP was alluding to.

Re: E-Shotgun

#116

Post by mensetmanusman »

glenstein wrote: post #40

I don't have a lot to say about the functionality or specifications here, but I feel like there's a new conceptual issue raised by non-lethal, or notionally non-lethal weapons. Constitutional arguments are about the right to self-defense. That's not necessarily the same as killing someone, and you don't necessarily have a right to killing in and of itself, but only as a means to an end for self-defense. I suppose it…

Not so sure about that, it was the anti-gun folk who were against finger-print-to-unlock firearms, because they thought having better security would result in more guns being owned.

Re: E-Shotgun

#117

Post by trabant00 »

dang wrote: post #99
trabant00 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you are a clueless idealist who never spent time with actual home robbers.

Please don't cross into personal attack in HN threads, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry, it was indeed wrong of me to comment like that.

Re: E-Shotgun

#118

Post by donw »

meheleventyone wrote: post #53
donw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. 16J is a slightly overpowered paintball gun.

Here’s some fatalities from guns around that power or less: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC500806/ Muzzle energy isn’t the only factor in lethality.

All of the weapons indicated in that article have muzzle energies well above 16J.

If the projectile was some kind of sharpened dart, 16J might be enough to be lethal in a headshot. Maybe. I'd have to do a test to see if it could punch through mass equivalent to the bones of the skull. But a disc or a ball? Unlikely. Could take out an eye, sure, but that's about it.

Absolutely unsuitable as a weapon.

Re: E-Shotgun

#119

Post by donw »

ReptileMan wrote: post #35
donw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. 16J is a slightly overpowered paintball gun.

It does matter what projectile is made from and it's shape. Something automatic with some good cameras and AI driven that targets only soft parts of the body could do some nice damage. Human body has amazing resistance to blunt force and lacerations. Piercing damage - very little could fuck you up very badly. Arteries, kidneys, eyes.

Joules are defined as kg * (m/s)^2. Weight is already factored in.

Shape does matter, though! A dart might be lethal if it hit a major artery or the heart. I'd have to do a test to see if it could punch through mass equivalent to the bones of the skull. Unsure, but I'd put money that it wouldn't.

This weapon looks to fire discs, not darts. No way that's going to be a lethal round at 16J.

Re: E-Shotgun

#120

Post by vogt »

panarky wrote: post #106
ajuc wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's already how this works in some countries. If someone attacks you with a baseball bat or fists and you shoot them dead you might be sentenced for overstepping a reasonable self-defense. The same crime at gun-point and at knife-point carries much harsher punishment. This encourages reasonable (de)escalation instead of just going for 120% from the start. And saves lives. End result is - even in countries with rel…

The cheat code in the US is to say "I was afraid the guy with the [fists | bat | skateboard] was going to take my rifle and shoot me with it."

That's a popular leftist talking point, but untrue. It didn't work for the murderers of Armad Aubrey (as it should not have), for one recent high-profile example.

If we were referring to _Police_ in America, I'd agree with you.

Post reply on HN