# A 2013-style death ray? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 20, 2013, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-2013-style-death-ray/661421 "2013-06-20T01:56:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-2013-style-death-ray/661421/1 "2013-06-20T01:56:58Z")
[This odd news story](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-foils-plot-build-strange-ray-weapon-possibly/story?id=19440343#.UcJgBvkWKxU) is about a KKK nutso who supposedly modified an x-raymachine to become a lethal dosage weapon, with his targets being Muslims in general, and of course POTUS. The FBI got wise to him and set him up for the fall. My question is: could one of these things actually be modified to produce an x-ray particle beam that would be, over what would likely be a significant distance, intense enough to cause someone to die a few weeks later? ---
**Author:** ![SandyHook](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@SandyHook](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SandyHook)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-2013-style-death-ray/661421/2 "2013-06-20T02:26:22Z")
The device was powered through the cigarette lighter in the truck according to the article. Now there’s enough power there to set off a bomb of any size. But it’s hard for me to see how enough power could be generated to produce any noticeable amount of X-rays. But since I know diddly-squat about the subject I could easily be wrong. No doubt someone with more knowledge in the area will be along soon. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-2013-style-death-ray/661421/3 "2013-06-20T02:33:21Z")
[This Huffington Post article](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/glendon-scott-crawford-eric-feight-terrorists_n_3466944.html) has a bit more information: "Last June, the undercover investigator brought Crawford X-ray tubes to examine for possible use in the weapon, followed by their technical specifications a month later. … "Investigators gave Feight $1,000 to build the control device and showed the men pictures of industrial X-ray machines they said they could obtain. … “Dr. Fred Mettler, the U.S. representative on the United Nations’ Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, was unfamiliar with the specifics of Crawford’s plans but said it’s unlikely such a device could work. Radiation can be narrowly beamed, as it is in some cancer treatments, but the accelerators require huge amounts of electricity, are not easily portable and any target would have to remain still for a long time.” Anyway, X-ray tubes used for non-destructive testing (i.e. taking X-ray images of structures) are lethal at close range. But focusing an X-ray into a narrow beam is very difficult. I think you’d have to mount several on a truck and park it right next to a path you know the target would walk on. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-2013-style-death-ray/661421/4 "2013-06-20T04:59:11Z")
It would be easier to build a microwave pistol using old microwave-oven parts. And by “easier” I mean “possibly physically possible if you have enough knowledge and a pretty-good electronic and mechanical prototyping shop”. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-2013-style-death-ray/661421/5 "2013-06-20T05:23:35Z")
Without running the numbers I’d go with something along the lines of somewhat unhealthy at best. Something powered by a cigarette lighter? Even less unhealthy. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-2013-style-death-ray/661421/6 "2013-06-20T05:27:28Z")
Just for general background, a device that used to “focus” a beam is a [collimator](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collimator). ---
**Author:** ![si\_blakely](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@si\_blakely](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/si_blakely)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-2013-style-death-ray/661421/7 "2013-06-20T07:45:29Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > Just for general background, a device that used to “focus” a beam is a [collimator](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collimator). For X-rays, they are hugely inefficient - rather than bending rays (like a optical lens) they just absorb rays that are not in the right direction, thus reducing intensity. For a point source, this is a major fraction of the initial intensity. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-2013-style-death-ray/661421/8 "2013-06-20T11:32:59Z")
> [@si\_blakely](#): > > For X-rays, they are hugely inefficient - Not only that, but a “beam” created by a collimator is not truly collimated, it’s just a portion of a divergent beam. So the dose at the target is the same as without a collimator, and you’re still subject to the inverse-square law. There are true [X-ray optics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_optics), but they are not very efficient. They are good for imaging, but not very useful for focusing X-rays for increasing intensity. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-2013-style-death-ray/661421/9 "2013-06-20T14:14:59Z")
> [@si\_blakely](#): > > For X-rays, they are hugely inefficient - rather than bending rays (like a optical lens) they just absorb rays that are not in the right direction, thus reducing intensity. For a point source, this is a major fraction of the initial intensity. There certainly are x-ray collimators and lenses that work by reflecting them (like a mirror) or refracting them (like a lens), but they look odd because of the requirements for manipulating photons of such high energy. grazing-incidence parabolas, multilayer stacks of odd materials are used as reflecting collimators, while series of holes drilled into metal are the simplest solution for x-ray lenses.