from the Making-science-fiction-into-science-fact dept.
Engineer Creates Real-Life 'Star Wars' Lightsaber That Can Slice Through Metal:
Engineer and YouTube personality James Hobson has finally done what so many movie nerds before him have dreamed about: He created a functional — and potentially deadly — lightsaber fit for a real Jedi.
[...] "Well, theories say that plasma is best held in a beam by a magnetic field, which, scientifically, checks out," he continues. "The issue is producing a strong enough electromagnetic field to contain a blade, well the lightsaber would have to be quite literally built inside a box coated in electromagnets, which turns it into a kind of useless science project."
In order to capture a beam of plasma, Hobson and his teammates, Dave Bonhoff, Ian Hillier and Darryl Sherk, employed the principle of "laminar flow" — combining liquified petroleum gas, or propane, with oxygen and sending them through "laminar nozzles," a specialized tool for engineers, which generates a highly concentrated flow of gas to create a plasma beam, according to Hobson.
[...] The result is a near-replica of a lightsaber that projects and retracts on command, and burns at 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit, which is hot enough to slice through steel.
[...] And it's got a price tag to match its heat level: Just one of those laminar nozzles can cost some $4,000.
Just wait until Elon Not-A-Flamethrower Musk tries to out-do this!
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Sunday October 18 2020, @11:34PM (7 children)
off screen, several feet of tubing, leading to large pressure cylinders..
still cool, though..
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19 2020, @12:06AM
We need more dense magic energy sources. It also needs to work without gas and in a vacuum somehow.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday October 19 2020, @12:23AM
Also off screen, the dancing tip of the flame. But neat still if perhaps a bit overwrought.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Monday October 19 2020, @01:51AM (3 children)
Actually on-screen, a backpack with all the needed support hardware and the cylinders. Of course it's not an actual lightsaber (a technology filled with phlebotinum and unobtanium requiring a fictional superpower to use without hurting yourself ) or even a practical weapon, but it's a kind of interesting project. Personally, I don't think I would have spent that much on it.
(Score: 2) by nostyle on Monday October 19 2020, @04:23AM
> Personally, I don't think I would have spent that much on it.
I wonder how the cost of making one of these compares to the cost of adding the "special-effect" light-saber sequences in a single SW movie. I have seen people "rolling their own" light-saber effects in clips on you tube, but I imagine the Hollywood quality stuff is a bit more costly.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19 2020, @01:55PM
I'm assuming they're greatly gotten that money back with the video views this has gotten them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19 2020, @08:22PM
Lightsabers don't require force powers to use, they require force powers to wield effectively against opponents who can gun you down from kilometers away.
(Score: 2) by chewbacon on Wednesday October 21 2020, @02:43AM
I think this would qualify as a proto-saber, which he does mention low key.
(Score: 5, Informative) by krishnoid on Monday October 19 2020, @12:27AM (10 children)
Unfamiliar with welding, but isn't this a "plasma torch"?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Kell on Monday October 19 2020, @12:39AM
It is, but that doesn't bring in the Youtube clicks.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday October 19 2020, @03:21AM (1 child)
And you expect the New York Post to be able to figure that out?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday October 19 2020, @02:12PM
You would?
That seems a bit much to ask of any news organization.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19 2020, @05:26AM (1 child)
Basically, yes. It's a propane torch with a long flame. But they worked out the propane through a precisely calibrated laminar flow nozzle so it looks surprisingly like a light saber from the movies, and the 'beam' can cut through stuff so it's way cooler than anything I've made during lockdown. I'm surprised something so conceptually simple looks as cool as it does.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2020, @06:36AM
But you can't "cross swords" with another of these as both flames/torch will just pass through.
Their earlier experiment where they light up some titanium rods allow them to "cross swords" but it won't retract - so they got a lot of feedback saying its not close enough, so now they got this solution which does retract but lost the ability to cross swords.
(Score: 5, Informative) by rigrig on Monday October 19 2020, @07:06AM (4 children)
No: a plasma torch uses current to generate actual plasma, this is just a beam-shaped flame.
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19 2020, @11:16AM (3 children)
a flame is a plasma.
not trying to be pedantic, but please go through the following.
physics definition of plasma given to me in school is "any mixture with a sizable fraction of charged particles, i.e. electrons, protons and ions".
plasma has definition because it's different from solid, liquid or gas (which are usually defined in terms of neutral particles).
this is why it sort of makes sense to talk about plasma extracted from blood: it's a solution with ions, electrolytes, or whatever you want to call it.
technically even water with table salt in it is a plasma, and you can show this with tracers in the water and some strong magnets outside.
a flame is just a plasma that emits visible light (because chemical reactions are strong enough to free electrons from molecules, and when they get captured again photons are emitted).
electric arc? yes, once electric potential is high enough molecules can start breaking up, with + going one way and - the other, colliding into other molecules and splitting THEM apart, etc.
but still, just a bunch of charged particles moving around.
I'm curious, is there any particular place where you've seen the distinction made between "flame" and "plasma"? I'm just wondering if it's an "engineer-vs-physicist" distinction, or if it's a "my education system is better" type of thing (such as the "decimal ." in English versus "decimal ," in French).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19 2020, @04:10PM (1 child)
No. Normal flames are not plasma. What you see in a normal fire is primarily hot gases.
When charged particles recombine you don't have the ingredients for plasma anymore. Like "gas" or "liquid", plasma is a description of the overall behaviour of a material; not the short-term behaviour of individual atoms or molecules within that material. You have plasma when the differently-charged particles remain separate, at least on average throughout the materal. This persistent dissociation of charged particles is what gives plasma its characteristic electrical conductivity.
Use a multimeter in resistance mode to try and measure the electrical conductivity of a flame (don't use your good probes for this as the fire shown is hot enough to melt most metals -- make probes by rolling up some aluminum foil or cut strips from a coke can or something). You will find that typical flames are not conductive, ergo, not plasma.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19 2020, @06:05PM
good point. thank you.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday October 19 2020, @04:30PM
Plasma-discharge televisions? The only time I see fire on them is when they're advertising them using a video of a fireplace.
Plus, I thought 'flame' was a chemical reaction, while 'plasma' is a state of matter. But I could be mixed up [dailymotion.com] on the concept.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by istartedi on Monday October 19 2020, @12:50AM (5 children)
If nothing else, this just reassures me that light sabers are best confined to the Star Wars fantasy universe. At the end when he had the finished product held up, all I could think was "that's way too close to his face". One slip and... you don't even want to think about it.
A firm grip, a Jedi has.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19 2020, @01:51AM (3 children)
I've heard that lightsaber battles don't make sense, which probably comes down to bad fight choreography in the movies, but you have to account for The Schwartz allowing Jedi to predict the future slightly. If two people are subconsciously predicting the future while swinging nearly massless heat sticks at each other, it shouldn't look much like a normal sword battle.
One Jedi using a lightsaber would presumably have enough voodoo to not cut off their own shoulder or nose, and there are practice lightsabers for dim YOUNGLINGS.
Here's another insurmountable problem. Get two "real-life" lightsabers and swing them at each other. They will pass right through each other. It won't block plasma blasts, and probably won't cut a rock thrown at the wielder. Don't bring a propane-powered lightsaber to your own stoning.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19 2020, @03:40AM (1 child)
Of course not .. you're supposed to bring weed for that.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday October 19 2020, @09:05AM
Although this makes for one hell of a lighter!!
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19 2020, @01:26PM
Depends on what the blade actually is. There's an old site that had some interesting speculation on what they could actually be, but it died a long time ago (wayback has it, though: https://web.archive.org/web/20030404035901/http://www.synicon.com.au/sw/ls/sabres4.htm [archive.org] ). No idea if the Disney stuff has contradicted anything there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19 2020, @08:29PM
A firm grip, a Jedi has.
That's what my friend Lefty says. He works at an alligator petting zoo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19 2020, @05:35AM
This is literally just PL/oxy cutting torch augmented with a laminar flow nozzle.
This is nothing new at all. By their standard I made a crude lightsabre dagger very often when I was doing oxy-acety cutting. By their standard a stick on fire or a sword daubed in oil and lit might as well be called a lightsabre.
Bah I say!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19 2020, @05:38AM
Nitpicking:
Argh that is not what a plasma beam means!
These people, using words with no regard - fuck it, I'll call my cat a lightsabre, so mine is better than theirs because she can make little lightsabres (with a little help to get started)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19 2020, @06:18AM
This is a cool build but I do not believe any significant amount of plasma is produced by this. While very hot, this is still normal fire resulting from reacting propane with oxygen, so what we are seeing is almost certainly very hot incandescent gases, not any kind of plasma.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 19 2020, @09:41AM
I do prefer a DIY thermal lance [youtube.com]. Much cheaper and more effective for cutting.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford