Hercules 400 laser makes you a man for a mere $3,000
By Paul Miller 
posted Nov 20th 2007 2:27PM
posted Nov 20th 2007 2:27PM
[Via Uncrate; thanks Frank]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
yeah, lightsabers ^^
George Lucas is SO gonna sue...
Laser Tag Xtreme!
does it come with sweet jedi skills?
I definitely want that model, but the blue lasers are really cool too.
Hercules! Hercules! Hercules!
BeetleJuice!!! BeetleJuice!!! BeetleJuice!!!
Sherman! Sherman! Sherman!
Bloody Mary! Bloody Mary! Bloody Mary!
[Insert witty and relevant joke here.]
This is Legal ?????? Burning up stuff and potentially may cause harm to people ......
You mean like matches?
I'd so buy one of those (if not for the $3000 price tag, of course)
the best place to get em' is www.laserglow.com
Wow, it's almost halfway there to being a real life light saber.
Finally, I have a means to destroy children's balloons from a distance.
but can it defrost my chicken?
Yes, it will also temporarily re-animate the chicken and have it walk into the pro boxer-endorsed grill of your choice.
Damn! My mad science budget is stretched too thin with that DNA sequencer that I scored last week.
This Legal ? Burning up stuff and harming people ...........
Guns are also legal. And knives...forks, scissors, sharp mechanical pencils, swords, etc.
Kinda difficult to bring down an airplane with a gun or a sword. Lasers, however, have already been used to blind pilots at altitude.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143494,00.html
(It's an AP story, that's just the only site I could find that carried this particular one.)
I don't really see a reason why lasers like this should be easily available to the general public. Do we have some great need for a device like this that was going unfulfilled up to this point?
If you criminalize death lasers then only criminals will have them.
@Jeff
No, there's no great need for them. Your point?
Now, is there some great need to make possession of this (or anything else) illegal?
Aren't laws against wrongful acts sufficient, since the only reasons offered against it are that someone might commit a wrongful act?
As far as the reason why they should be easily available to the general public now, that's because technology has improved to the point where a laser of this power can be packaged this conveniently and sold at this price.
The combination of pricing and packaging constitute easy availability, and there's no reason why artificial difficulties should be added.
actually lasers this powerful usually have FCC restrictions on them. You'd have a hard time getting one sold to your residence as this would not be residential rated, but probably not to your workplace.
What we really want to know is how much Sharks cost!!!
"Kinda difficult to bring down an airplane with a gun or a sword. Lasers, however, have already been used to blind pilots at altitude."
@Jeff: That's why most planes have guns on them.
FYI - a 400mW laser also does a great job of melting car door locks, effectively preventing someone from putting the key in, and opening their locked car door....not that I have ever done that, I'm just sayin'.
BS.
No way only 400mW could melt the metal in a door lock. You'd need at LEAST 10W (10,000mW) and 100W (100,000mW) to do it quickly.
You don't need to melt the metal. Melt the plastic surround and they're going to get fucked.
Melt, no.
*Defrost*, yes. Which would be really awesome, imo.
Would also be nice for starting campfires. From A MILE AWAY.
Good thing for automatic door locks. ;)
The Hercules 400: Only /you/ can start forest fires from a mile away.... unless some other idiot buys one.
I'm still creeped out by the military grade one being able to fire into someone's brain and kill them. Could something like that be powered by a satellite?
You'll put your eye out, kid!
I see these advertisements all the time in Popular Mechanics and Popular Science
"but we would've sold our family into slavery for a shot at one of these,"
LOL Hahahahahahah
These are devices that the average citizen should NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE.
Ranks right up there with#
Tasers
Stun Guns
GUNS
cellular jamming devices
grenades
fireworks
access to explosive/weapons plans on the internet
crazy glue.
IN THE WRONG HANDS These things kill innocent people.
There are NO "right hands".
I could see someone burning people's retinas with this or starting MASSIVE FIRES in California with it.
As much as I'd want one, I'd leave it right where it is.
Come and get my gun. Better bring your own, though.
Hillbilly humour just isn't funny to the rest of us.
Why do I get the impression that, given any political power, you would craft the most controlling nanny state ever devised?
Khris,
What humor?
Actually, the elitist remarks are the ones that do not do so well. Fascist.
Lasers don't kill people, people kill people.
So basically, Flashpoint, you're in favor of abolishing the Bill of Rights? I mean, I see freedom of speech and right to bear arms rather clearly on that list of yours.
Seriously though, you saying people shouldn't be allowed to hunt? I mean, I'm not a hunter myself, but it's a hell of a lot better than the mass produced factor meat most of us eat.
@ getz76
Isn't the point of the comment section for the elitists to gather and exchange witty banter with one another?
Sorry you don't fit in. Better luck next time.
I bet that Flashpoint is super fun at parties.
@ChrisJ,
"Lasers don't kill people, people kill people"
Shh... Chuck Norris might hear you.
@Khris,
Who said I wanted to fit in? I wouldn't need a gun, then. I was just getting on you for perpetuating the stereotype that all gun owners are "nuts" AND "rednecks". I am not a redneck.
Also, my NRA membership gets me better discounts than any other membership around, including my internet minister ordination. Only the greyhairs using their AARP memberships get better discounts.
Nice comment below regarding "Scenario #3", though. :)
There are actions that citizens *should not be allowed to take*. Blinding someone with one of these is a good example.
I can think of plenty of legit uses I'd have for a device like this:
1) Defrosting car locks
2) Cutting just about anything
3) Lighting fires (campfires, fireplaces, etc.)
4) Self-defense? Sure, why the hell not?
5) Fun with optics (experimentation)
That's just the beginning, I'm sure there's more. The point is, you don't outlaw baseball bats because they happen to be such terrific melee weapons.
Wow. This gets me pretty angry. So, Flashpoint, what you're saying is guns should be banned?
I have the RIGHT to own firearms, and I have been practicing that right since my childhood. I own many firearms, and am completely and totally educated about each one and understand AND practice complete and total safety with them.
The only people that should NOT be allowed to own firearms are criminals and those who are not responsibly fit to do so.
What's that BS about defrosting carlocks with a laser? you can just insert one of those heated little rods on batteries and defrost them, or spray some WD40 in in advance so you don't have to defrost them in the first place, or move to a warmer place even.
I agree that 400mw is much too much to be put in the hand of your random dork on the street, and that has nothing to do with a 'nanny state'.
@Flashpoint
I agree with you. It just doesn't seem like a necessity to have one of these.
WOW!! I can point a laser 10miles away, and blind 100 people in the process, what's the point? You can't see the dot ten miles away.
@starkruzr
Those seem like pretty silly uses for a handheld laser. Why not get the proper tools to such tasks?
@Wwhat
While reading through these comments, I was waiting for someone to say what your said.
@ Those who were talk about having guns
Why need a gun? Unless you are a hunter, what is the purpose? So that way someone in the future can find it and shoot themselves/you with it? Unless you're living in some area of town where the only way to walk safely across the street is to point a gun at everyone, then I really don't see the point. (And if that were the case, you need to move)
I do know there are people out there who take care and are properly responsible with the weaponry, and I commend you for it.
@SuperS. The same reason you have a smoke alarm, health insurance, etc. The unfortunate truth is that criminals have guns and other weapons, even though in most cases they are not legally supposed to have them, hence the term criminal. My community of 24,000 hasn't had a murder (there might have been one this past summer, but that was with a car) in the past year, or in the last 5 years as far as I can tell, and guess what? Over 50% of the residences here contain at least one gun. There have been no accidental shootings either. It is common knowledge that this is the case and that is a significant deterrent. People just don't screw around here, because there is a real possibility that the person you are trying to rob/carjack/rape is going to pull out a 9mm and shoot you. And I like it that way.
Aren't you the same guy that just said he works for Lockheed Martin? Oh man, the irony!
So is there any legitimate use for this? Not that I wouldnt mind burning people and melting car locks from a distance.
Ya you can use it as a presentation pointer. You just have to be 10 miles away from the screen.
Yo can use it as an astronomical pointer, the beam is visible through the air
Green lasers are also used as high end weapon sites
You could use this and a hamster tied down to plywood to simulate one of those James Bond scenes where he's about to be sliced in half with a laser.
You could IMMOLATE insects.
You could burn holes through the heads of small furry animals.
You could blind people for life !!!!
You could solder small pieces of metal - or do those DYI projects engadget suggests all the time.
ACT NOW and you get the laser for the low low price of "selling your entire family into slavery"
I don't know about you but if I was going to blind someone or torture little animals I know I could do it for a lot cheaper than 3g's Honestly you're little i'm scared because it might be used negatively attitude might as well apply to any tool in anyone's garage or shed... Shoot my flat head screw driver might become a tool for prying up fingernails better start regulating the sales of those and monitoring who has them... better yet lets BAN THEM!!!!
Only you would tie down a cute little hamster and simluate a james bond movie, and thats just plain sick.
"It can project a spot on the moon. Or, at closer range, cut through solid metal. Come, I will show you."
and you could own yours today! knock your self out!
http://www.xtremegadgets.net
Scenario #1
A cop pulls you over and you get arrested. They find this on you. The cop doesn't know what it is, thinking its a cool flashlight.
Do you A) tell him its a dangerous laser.
B) allow him to burn his retinas out when he examines it or
c) ask him who he voted for in the 2000 election and then choose A) or B)
Scenario 2
Your mom is searching your room for laundry and finds this...
Scenario 3
You try make a witty comment about a cool gadget and it backfires in your face, making you look like a fool.
I think scenario #3 is the only plausible one so far.
You have 3000$ to spend on this but you live with your mom?
That's precisely why he has $3000 to spend on this.
@khris good god what are you a nazi, can't engadget readers post their comment with out getting flamed. I don't care if you don't like it but some people might like me.
@superprime have you ever heard of a teenager, yes they live with thier moms and they can drive
@greg
Check all the comments Flashpoint posted in this. Can you say troll?
Yeah, trolls put me in Nationalist Socialist mode, too. Well, that or Nordic/Germanic legendary hero mode, depending mainly on whether a good sword is close ot hand.
Design flaw:
The on/off stencil is on the muzzle, where if you're looking at it, it will blind you once you turn it on. Can't you just imagine a guy banging on the end of it like a catsup bottle, looking down the muzzle and wondering 'Hey, what gives' ... zap!
PEW! PEW! PEW! PEW! PEW! PEW!
LMFAO...now that's all I can think about...running around the office going...PEW! PEW! PEW! PEW!
I love how they put the "on off" lettering on the business end of the device so you can look at it while turning it on.
That's the built in wanker detector.
If you can still see after turning it on, you're competent enough to use it.
That's not on/off thats an aperture cover, designed so the laser can't emit light without you opening it and so stuff doesn't get into the laser while you aren't using it.
First of all, they go up to 600mW (http://laserglow.com/index.php?hercules). Second, the On-Off is to open the aperture which is required by the FDA. This does not turn the unit on or off. That is done by the blue button towards the middle. That has a delay to prevent someone from accidentally pressing it and blinding themselves. Lastly, to be FDA complaint, it also has a key protection mechanism.
This is quite a bit different from your standard laser pointer. Many more safety precautions.
Wow! The FDA (Food & Drug Administration) regulates laser devices? Hm... What next, the ATF regulating plastic surgery?
Yeah, almost as bad as writing the usage instructions for a gun inside the barrel.
Please read carefully:
1. Load bullets.
2. Pull back "hammer" on back of gun.
3. Pull trigger.
4. If you made it this far you did something wrong.
Burns through cardboard?! Sweet! Now I can build my alien destructo-mobile out of a Segway, HID lights, and a few of these bad boys and reign terror upon the homeless community! And my mother thought I would never amount to anything...
New World Order here I come!
"I mean, I see freedom of speech and right to bear arms rather clearly on that list of yours."
That supposed "right":
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
So I take it you are part of a well regulated militia?
There is no individual right to bear arms granted in the constitution. The "people" in the second amendment are a well regulated militia, which every state was granted the right to maintain to protect itself against the federal government. And even that's an idea that was outmoded about 150 years ago.
Regardless, things change. Even if the second amendment did grant the right to individuals to bear arms (which it does not), that idea probably made a lot more sense in 1787 than it does in 2007. It's interesting that countries with much longer histories than ours seem a lot less tied to the past than we do. Japan, for example, made guns illegal after WWII, and guess what happened. Crime basically disappeared. Not just shootings, either; all types of crime.
I guess it's okay to amend the constitution for frivolous things like outlawing flag-burning, but not for issues of public safety like this alleged individual right to bear arms.
"Japan, for example, made guns illegal after WWII, and guess what happened. Crime basically disappeared. Not just shootings, either; all types of crime."
I hate to feed trolls, but I just have to let people know that there's quite a few problems with naming an example of a "country that saw crime basically disappear after outlawing guns," namely the countries of Israel, Finland, and Canada -- all have high amounts of personal gun ownership, and all have very low amounts of violent crime.
Jeff, your comments reflect your millimeter deep understanding of the issues around the second amendment.
First: The Bill of Rights was intended as an individual bill of rights. Proponents of the BoR argued that the constitution created a strong Federal government that had potential power to infringe on individual citizens' rights. Thus, it is *far* from unreasonable to take the BoR as enshrining *individual* rights, including the right to bear arms.
Second: For every Japan there is an England, where crime skyrocketed after personal firearms were banned. Or Canada, where the rate of personal gun ownership is higher than the US but crime rates are lower.
Actually many judges (including some in the United States supreme court) view the right to bear arms as blanketed into the average citizen. There is a big debate over this right now as the justices (justii if you will, ha) are debating whether or not to make a precedent setting ruling over how much the second amendment encompasses.
So while through semantics you are correct, the interpretation of the law as set forth by the courts in most states disagrees with you.
Japan also has a different culture than the United States, where crime is considered very shameful and can cause a lot of grief for your family, in the US we just feel bad because your dad probably hit you and it's not really your fault you killed those people.
If you look at most other countries where guns have been outlawed (like Australia) there was either no change in violent crime AND a rise in things like robbery and burglary because the criminals (who don't care about laws) are packing heat and don't have to worry about the rest of us shooting back.
When was the last time anyone sane, your neighbors, doctor or business associates shot at you? You don't need to worry about these people having guns and it should in fact, be encouraged. What you have to worry about is that other people can get guns, and guess what? They'll find ways to get them whether they are outlawed or not.
The act of banning firearms will not remove the driving force behind crimes. All that will happen is that individuals will resort to other 'tools' in order to execute the crimes.
Granted, a blanket ban on firearms (imagining a perfect world whereby all illegal firearms can also be removed from circulation) would put a dent in the number of crime related fatalities, but not in the number of crimes perpetrated until the socio-economic causers are adressed and the motivation that drives individuals to the wrong side is removed.
If your kids hit each other with sticks, and you take away the sticks, then they'll hit each other with closed fists.
First, the simple thing. Can the strawman! Nobody in their right mind supports banning flag burning. The sort of people who support that support "regulation" of guns, too. Not banning, and not recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, which "shall not be infringed." They have no real convictions about government; they are merely populist poll-watchers.
Now, for your more serious argument:
Check http://www.awrm.org/mission.htm
They have some nice quotes from the Founding Fathers (of course, quotes selected by a pro-militia group), but more importantly, the United States Code, which defines the militia in a rather non-feminist pleasing fashion. Go read it.
So, I assume you're a member of the militia. I certainly am.
And please read what it says:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People...
You seem to interpret "being necessary ... free state" as a parenthetical. If so, the sentence should remain grammatically sound on removal of the parenthetical. This does not work. In fact, the first comma is, by modern rules of grammar, unneccessary. The article guarantees a right (the right of the people to keep and bear arms), giving a reason (a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state).
WRT Japan, they didn't make guns illegal after WWII, WE made guns illegal after WWII. We didn't want to go fight Japan's imperialist tradition again, so we totally castrated them. Right or wrong? Good question, and I really don't know. But the point is, we did. We deprived them of any meaningful defense capabilities, but took them under our defensive umbrella. They would no longer exist except for that last bit. Unless you have a suggestion of another country to defend the US, don't suggest we should be like Japan.
@Nathan
Not sure what "semantics" he's right by; I explained my view, so if you see things differently, I'd be interested to hear.
Now all I need is some friggin sharks to attach it to!!!
Imma firin' mah lazer!
why dose this need to cost $3000 if you can get one at 240mW of ebay for £25 (about $50)?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Power-240MW-532nm-Green-Laser-Pointer-Pen-Light-UK_W0QQitemZ200175838967QQihZ010QQcategoryZ14954QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
its only just under twice as powerful so you wouldnt expect to pay more than about $100 for it
I've got one of these Hercules lasers from techlasers dawt com and they cost only around $1500 for the same power output, talk about killing you with the price, lol
The website says that it starts from $989, but my REAL INTEREST lies with rule number 8 of the terms and conditions of sale ( http://www.laserglow.com/index.php?companypolicies ):
8. I will never remove the laser's infrared filter.
What would HAPPEN if one was to remove said filter?
IR emission is arguably the most dangerous thing about high-power lasers. The infrared light can damage your eyes, but because you can't detect it, there's no aversion reflex (i.e. you don't blink). Over time, it can cause blindness.
Leave the filter where it is; the laser isn't any less cool. :)
More info (sorry for the marketing spin on this page, but it's informative enough):
http://www.wickedlasers.com/laser-tech/WhyisIRbad.html
This would make quite a mess in a movie theater.
And the cost to outfit my army of 333 sharks with fricken' laser beams on their heads???
ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Mwahahahaha!!!!
It is regulated by the CDRH, which is a part of the FDA. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/
Niiiiice... gotta have one!!!
"prepare the laser beam,
we're gonna use it tonight.
engage the laser beam,
it's gonna end your life."
-dethklok
would come in handy sitting in back of the defense table during a murder trial
Huh, you learn something new every day...
WTG blindness, hooza!
Hey guys, I actually work for Laserglow (the company that sells the Hercules).
The ON/OFF stencil on the head indicates how you open the aperture shutter. To activate the laser (a phrase which is ALWAYS spoken like Dr. Evil, heh) you also have to insert and turn the key, insert the safety interlock, hit the power button and then wait for a 2 second delay. If you're still pointing the laser at your eye by this point you've completely ignored the operating instructions and common sense. You should be wearing safety goggles! There are less expensive lasers available, but I guess engadget decided that if you're gonna feature a laser, go big or go home. I don't want to spam up this thread, but if anyone wants to post a legit question I'll be happy to help, or email me at work: jhosaki@laserglow.com
Big thanks to the guys at Engadget for featuring our laser!
can someone tell me if its actually a good idea to place a "ON - OFF" marker/arrow directly on the tip of the laser? what if the rich boy who bought this laser happend to not know how to turn it on and sees the thing, directly looking at it, and turns it on? blindness anyone?
The laser is a nice rig! I'd buy one right now. But, my plan is to send that $3k to Ron Paul's election campaign instead.
I'll say this, I'm glad the fascists in the USA aren't as educated as the one's in Hitler's Germany or Mussonlini's Italy. Or we'd be in big trouble.
Listen up simpleton's. The Constitution doesn't guarantee any rights. The people enjoy ALL rights in and of themeselves. The Consitution cleary defines how much power the people have bestowed upon the government and defines ITs power, period.
All of the "Nanny State" and 'anti-gun/self-defense' people should go to prison. Why? Because they'd discover their utopia within its walls. The government they crave will feed them, cloth them, indoctrinate them and "protect" them as prisons are the pen-ultimate gun-free zone. But wait, there's more! You get universal health care in prison. Help america, let's send the Nanny-Staters straight to a cell block ;)
Get in the shade, your neck is getting red.
You say the Constitution doesn't guarantee any rights. You are simply wrong.
Under Article V, amendments become "valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution" when ratified.
The Bill of Rights, AKA the first ten amendments, are now part of the constitution. They guarantee that certain rights are retained by the people, regerdless of whether violating those rights is merely an exercise of some power we have already granted the government.
This mixture, with some specified powers granted to the government, and some rights blocked off regardless of those powers, shouldn't be a problem. In fact, people have a tendency to see guaranteed rights, and assume the government has unlimited power as long as it does not infringe those rights. This is wrong, and the amendments 9 and 10 specifically counter it; but that's not sufficient. Some people just cannot grasp the notion that, when granting specific powers, boundaries on those powers can be imposed as guaranteed rights, while not authorizing any powers outside those enumerated.
I think you may realize this, but it's crucial to say what you mean. The government is not defined by guaranteed rights; it's defined by specifically granted powers, further constrained by those rights.