Password Protected Ammo? Seriously.


PDA






Nivek
November 21, 2010, 08:56 PM
Stumbled upon an article that linked me to this patent for microchipped ammunition that requires a password protected radio frequency to fire. Can't wait for the lobbyists to get a hold on this one...

Read the patent here (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220060117632%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060117632&RS=DN/20060117632)

If you enjoyed reading about "Password Protected Ammo? Seriously." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
M-Cameron
November 21, 2010, 09:51 PM
you do realize....that if someones thought of it....theres probably a patent for it...

....that doesnt mean its going to be used.....or was ever even planned to be used....

Nivek
November 21, 2010, 10:14 PM
Yeah, I get that. There are some pretty ridiculous patents out there. But there's been pushes for micro-stamping, and "smart" guns already. This isn't far off from either of those concepts. Is it possible? Yes. Feasible? NO. But when did that ever stop the Anti's??

armoredman
November 21, 2010, 10:25 PM
Watch the freq be too close to another type of RFI, and ammo starts detonating in the magazine when going by a store RFID monitor. oops.
I doubt that's going anywhere.

Dulvarian
November 21, 2010, 10:31 PM
I would never carry ammo like that out in public. There are too many stray sources of radiowaves for me to be comfortable with it. I think of all the times I have seen a radar detector go off for no reason... no thanks.

But yes, as with the above posts, there are a great many patents that will thankfully never see the light of day. This will probably be one of them.

Ragnar Danneskjold
November 21, 2010, 10:35 PM
Not defending this idea, but I'm pretty sure it means that it is able to be fired by the trigger when the signal is on, not that the signal itself sets the ammo off. It's not going to detonate in the holster just because of radio waves.

Nivek
November 21, 2010, 10:59 PM
Totally useless for SD anyway. "Wait, don't rob me! I have to activate my gun so I can stop you!" ...HA!

Funny what people can invent though.

Old krow
November 21, 2010, 11:12 PM
This guy is the CEO of Simons-Voss out of Munnich Germany.

Not defending this idea, but I'm pretty sure it means that it is able to be fired by the trigger when the signal is on, not that the signal itself sets the ammo off. It's not going to detonate in the holster just because of radio waves.

If that's the case, it can be manipulated and possibly force a FTF. I agree, it would not blow the holster up. Worst case scenario... nothing would go bang at all.

LtShortcut
November 22, 2010, 01:02 PM
Okay, I'm going to play devils advocate.

Just because it would be crazy to do this today, what about 25 years from now?

Look at cell phones and computers 25 years ago compared with today? Who's to say it wouldn't be cheap and unobtrusive in the future?

cbrgator
November 22, 2010, 01:08 PM
Just because it would be crazy to do this today, what about 25 years from now?

Look at cell phones and computers 25 years ago compared with today? Who's to say it wouldn't be cheap and unobtrusive in the future?

Cell phones and computers aren't fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Maybe different people with different viewpoints should all be forced to speak on specific radio frequencies as the sole outlet for free speech. That way, people who don't want to hear a contrary point of view can avoid that frequency. Free speech isn't affected, right?

(I realize this example mirrors reality to some degree anyway, but my point would require those radio frequencies to be the only outlet for speech, not just one possible avenue as it is today).

Justin
November 22, 2010, 01:23 PM
People have applied for patents for all kinds of stupid ideas.

Until someone actually tries to implement this in real life, I don't see any real reason to be terribly concerned.

LtShortcut
November 22, 2010, 01:46 PM
Cell phones and computers aren't fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Maybe different people with different viewpoints should all be forced to speak on specific radio frequencies as the sole outlet for free speech. That way, people who don't want to hear a contrary point of view can avoid that frequency. Free speech isn't affected, right?

Your rude attack was uncalled for.

I never ONCE said that this ammunition would be some sort of requriment.
I would assume you would CHOOSE to have this type of ammo. Like a police officer who doesn't want to get shot by his own gun.

I accept your apology. :neener:

Claude Clay
November 22, 2010, 01:54 PM
just imagine--the 'agencies' will want a master frequency neutralizer. when they come on the scene it will turn off everyone else's cartridges but theirs. of course this device will never fall into the hands of criminals:rolleyes:

tkopp
November 22, 2010, 02:10 PM
Getting a radio signal to work properly inside a firearm would be a dicey proposition, given the amount of steel in there.

MrOldLude
November 22, 2010, 02:31 PM
Getting a radio signal to work properly inside a firearm would be a dicey proposition, given the amount of steel in there.
One could make a similar argument about cars. But magically, it's not a problem.

zoom6zoom
November 22, 2010, 03:56 PM
RF? Now we have a whole new way that a gun can be "jammed".

Telumehtar
November 22, 2010, 04:17 PM
I think people are focusing too quickly on the possible bad things a technology like this could be used for, which considering the classic "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line used by many Pro-gun debaters, makes me kinda laugh at the hysterics surrounding this proposed technology.

The technology in and of itself is neither good nor bad, it's the application which matters.

Quite frankly, the concept of having ammunition that only activates with a signaled "key" from the gun it was linked to, in conjunction with say fingerprinting or DNA "keying" of say the hand to the hand grip of the gun could be an invaluable tool in preventing weapons from being used by the wrong people at the wrong time.

For instance, on police issued weapons, where the possibility of a stolen gun in a heated situation where the officer's gun could be turned on him, is probably a good place for technology like this.

Now don't get me wrong, I would never be in favor mandating these technologies on firearms, but having the option is a GOOD thing.

So quit with the kneejerk "tech is evil" crap, cause quite honestly, you sound like a bunch of whining anti-gunners. :evil:

Shadow 7D
November 22, 2010, 07:25 PM
Cool, so you carry a cell zapper (scrambler) and their gun can't work...
sorry don't think the cops will go for this one, and hunters don't like having to carry spare hearing aid batteries, could you see the outdoor channel,
wait a minute Jake, gotta change the batteries in the gun, OH damnit the codes dumped, well we are done for today, look at that 12 point, gotta rock

Old krow
November 22, 2010, 08:03 PM
Cool, so you carry a cell zapper (scrambler) and their gun can't work...
sorry don't think the cops will go for this one

Just go to radio shack and make sure you have an adequate power source. http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/

RF? Now we have a whole new way that a gun can be "jammed".
:what:

Hardtarget
November 23, 2010, 01:45 AM
The way to stop consideration of this...make the presidents body guards use it for two years first... then have ALL police use it for two years. It will go away.

Mark

danez71
November 23, 2010, 08:36 AM
Maybe the guy patented it so that govt CANT use it.

This isnt much different of an idea than the RFID bracelet device. Which IMO is a more realistic approach as is matches the bracelet to the gun. Easy to match.

This patent needs a gun to ammo match which would require some type of programming of the ammo sensor (ie - go buy ammo and the guy at the counter would have to swipe the box of ammo to allow it to work in your gun).

The technology is here now to make an RFID 'tag' small enough to fit inside the shell but is too cost prohibitive at that size.

tkopp
November 23, 2010, 11:37 AM
One could make a similar argument about cars. But magically, it's not a problem.

That's because cars have large external antennas and don't keep their radios inside of a piston ;)

You could synch up with ammo inside of a polymer magazine no problem, but you'd have to put your transmitter antenna in the bolt or chamber to make the connection to ammunition ready to fire. Not an impossible proposition, but it's a real point of failure.

millertyme
November 23, 2010, 11:49 AM
The technology is here now to make an RFID 'tag' small enough to fit inside the shell but is too cost prohibitive at that size.


So it can fit inside the case but can it stand the pressure and heat?

mcdonl
November 23, 2010, 11:49 AM
The great thing about guns, reloading supplies and ammo is that they will last forever. Concepts like this (Which could become reality) are great reasons to continue to purchase guns, ammo and reloading supplies.

Gouranga
November 23, 2010, 12:50 PM
Telumehtar I think it is a good thing for folks to look at negatives on new tech. There has already been too many tech ideas thrown out there without ANY consideration of drawbacks.

Looking at this tech balanced (considering good and bad) should be done before we have it in our faces. Not doing so will get you a knee jerk reaction as it is suddenly thrown into peoples faces.

Now I work in the tech sector, I am bathed in bleeding edge tech and yeah there are some awesome advances out there. As techies we tend to know the positives by heart but getting the negative feedback from the folks in the trenches can be very helpful and allow the guys developing this tech in the future to address these negatives before releasing it.

Personally, I do not want electronic in my gun. Mechanics are more reliable IMO, less complicated, and plain and simply they work. Before they roll electronics into firearms, specifically controlling the firing mechanism (not counting laser sights, tactical lights, scopes, etc) you have to consider all the environments it has to deal with. Also the cost. We cannot and must not have firearms getting expensive to the point that only the well-to-do can afford them. We need to be sure any law abiding man who wishes to have a gun can get one without mortgaging his home.

hirundo82
November 23, 2010, 06:43 PM
For instance, on police issued weapons, where the possibility of a stolen gun in a heated situation where the officer's gun could be turned on him, is probably a good place for technology like this.

Now don't get me wrong, I would never be in favor mandating these technologies on firearms, but having the option is a GOOD thing.

I agree having the option is a good thing, but most politicians have never met a stupid idea they don't want to make mandatory. What ends up happening is that some antigun politician ends up mandating it for the little people and exempting law enforcement from the requirements because they complain the technology is too prone to fail.

Look at the New Jersey "smart gun" law (where if the chip fails the gun will not fire), or the ammunition microstamping bills introduced in several states over the past few years.

therewolf
November 23, 2010, 07:01 PM
So let me get this straight.

According to the antis,we're supposed to use guns with a holster catch, a thumb safety, a personal lock, AND ammo with a personal lock. In practical terms, for self defense, we release our loaded gun from the holster, pull it out, deactivate the thumb safety, activate the gun, activate the ammo,THEN shoot... ...I don't know, sounds a little involved or convoluted to me.

Why can't the antis just put all this RF crap and fancy locks on criminals?

Shadow 7D
November 23, 2010, 10:24 PM
because the criminals pay lip service to disarm citizens and laugh at the antis, and aren't stupid enough to buy it.

FROGO207
November 23, 2010, 10:55 PM
Just pass a law first that you have to use password protected cash to pay for it. That will slow them down some.:D

twofifty
November 24, 2010, 12:24 AM
String the antenna between the front and rear sights.
Signal available by subscription through OnStar.
Hopefully the operating system is more robust that what's on a PC.
;)

therewolf
November 24, 2010, 12:26 AM
I think we need to provide the Democrats with password protected voting booths and tax increases!

I don't see any of these antis moving to China. They've had gun control for a long time!

danez71
November 24, 2010, 09:43 AM
So it can fit inside the case but can it stand the pressure and heat?

It doesnt need to..... its a one time use. Once the round is fired, it doesnt need to work anymore. The heat and pressue comes after its served its purpose.


However, along those lines, the remaing rounds in the gun still have to work after the shock of the recoil. I think the gerneral commercial spec for types of components is 10k G-forces..... which isnt the best test for shock forces. I cant remember if there is even a spec for the shock forces.... actually, there is a vibration spec... maybe that would be an acceptable test. Now, I'm getting beyond my experience.

jimjc
November 24, 2010, 11:24 AM
You hit the nail on the head. What isn`t accepted today, does not necessarily mean it will not happen in the future. LOOK AT ALL THE ASSULTS TO THE CONSTITUTION GOING ON NOW these would have been silly a few decades ago.

Military state, total control of the poplation. CAN BE THE OUTCOME.

leadcounsel
November 24, 2010, 02:48 PM
The technology in and of itself is neither good nor bad, it's the application which matters.


I disagree. There is some technology which is ONLY developed to control people and this is one of them. There is NO legitimate benefit to the individual civilian gun owner to using this. But there's a lot of drawbacks, including someone with a "signal jammer" shutting your guns down...

Xader
November 24, 2010, 07:59 PM
These guys really do seem to be thinking ahead

The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the security means is an energy barrier.

They're patenting a device that uses technology that isn't likely to exist in the foreseeable future?

May as well patent bullets that use teleportation to appear inside the target's body. :D

danez71
November 24, 2010, 09:06 PM
Quote:
The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the security means is an energy barrier.

They're patenting a device that uses technology that isn't likely to exist in the foreseeable future?




Actually, its here now... they are referring to the RFID itself.

The 'Radio Frequency" in RFID is an energy field with a range.... the range of which the transmitter and reveiver reach each other.

The "ID" is 'identification' in which it is unique and provides the security aspect.


It just means something along the lines of a of wireless router or sorta kinda even a car remote. Or, in this case RFID.

If you enjoyed reading about "Password Protected Ammo? Seriously." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!