3 ms·

We are talking about a sci-fi style force-field here! I'd be surprised if the military didn't secretly experiment with this.

swayvil 2y ago
You can count on that.
bluGill 2y ago
Unless engineers looked at it and said not reliable (only works with low humidly), prone to breakdowns, and might randomly kill people. And then some general stood up and said what is wrong with your standard reinforced door?
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > not reliable (only works with low humidly) That's merely an engineering issue. Keep spraying it with water or something. You do it right, and you might even get the familiar buzzing and shimmering of Star Trek force fields! > prone to breakdowns Ah yes, that's very much like Star Trek force fields. > and might randomly kill people That might be an issue for Starfleet. A real-world military today will definitely see this as a feature. Ultimately, you're not wrong, but I would hope some military or other entity with deep budget would try building it anyway, simply because science isn't about "why?", it's about "why not?". I would also imagine, should this design work and became widely-known, some hacker would build and operate it just because.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    water would be high humidity not low.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      Second paragraph of the article starts with: > This occurred in late summer in South Carolina, August 1980, in extremely high humidity. But I may have misunderstood this as high humidity being key to it happening, rather than an impediment.
      - bluGill 2y ago
        Or perhaps I misunderstood, my reading was low humidity matters, but it is quite possible that I know in general for static high humidity shorts everything to ground and so you don't get much static - and thus probably skimmed that part more than I should have.
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    > A real-world military today will definitely see this as a feature. Real world militaries are still pretty picky about who they kill. In particular they don't like killing their own soldiers, who are most likely to be in the discharge path for a shield around their own stuff.

swayvil 2y ago

You can count on that.

bluGill 2y ago

Unless engineers looked at it and said not reliable (only works with low humidly), prone to breakdowns, and might randomly kill people. And then some general stood up and said what is wrong with your standard reinforced door?

TeMPOraL 2y ago
> not reliable (only works with low humidly) That's merely an engineering issue. Keep spraying it with water or something. You do it right, and you might even get the familiar buzzing and shimmering of Star Trek force fields! > prone to breakdowns Ah yes, that's very much like Star Trek force fields. > and might randomly kill people That might be an issue for Starfleet. A real-world military today will definitely see this as a feature. Ultimately, you're not wrong, but I would hope some military or other entity with deep budget would try building it anyway, simply because science isn't about "why?", it's about "why not?". I would also imagine, should this design work and became widely-known, some hacker would build and operate it just because.
- bluGill 2y ago
  water would be high humidity not low.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    Second paragraph of the article starts with: > This occurred in late summer in South Carolina, August 1980, in extremely high humidity. But I may have misunderstood this as high humidity being key to it happening, rather than an impediment.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Or perhaps I misunderstood, my reading was low humidity matters, but it is quite possible that I know in general for static high humidity shorts everything to ground and so you don't get much static - and thus probably skimmed that part more than I should have.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  > A real-world military today will definitely see this as a feature. Real world militaries are still pretty picky about who they kill. In particular they don't like killing their own soldiers, who are most likely to be in the discharge path for a shield around their own stuff.