You all are focusing on the article I linked. Few are focusing on the ‘active denial tanks’ themselves, which is what this thread is about. I have talked to more than one person with military experience who claims these tanks kill people. Whether they melt or not is irrelevant.
I want the “straight dope” on these allegedly non-lethal devices.
And you’ve got the straight dope on them. They don’t work on the battlefield at all. They don’t kill people, and they don’t even mildly inconvenience them.
Unless you have a more reliable source than “some guys” (and given the fact that googling turned up zero reports of deaths resulting from ADS) I would definitely say these are myths.
The link I posted above stated:
You seem convinced that your sources are true and that the only possible straight dope is a description of a working device that meets your expectations. Life usually isn’t so clear cut.
You have a claimed first hand account that the device can melt a bus. I showed that this is implausible at best through simple application of high school physics.
Killing someone is just as hard, especially as they will almost certainly simply run away. Be clear, very high power microwaves are dangerous, and technicians who worked with early military radar systems were injured before the risk was understood. But as a lethal weapon, a directed microwave device is a mess. It is trivially avoided, takes too long to do its job, and requires a ridiculous power generation capability. If you look at the high power field radar systems cited above you see a system that needs its own generator, is mounted on a separate trailer or a shipping container, and only generates an average power of 40kW. 40kW is dangerous. Standing in front of the beam at close range a long time would cause significant injury. At 75m it is plausible that with just the right circumstances you might manage to ignite something like dry grass. The size of the antenna is an important clue as well, it has to be that size in order to generate a tight beam. Smaller antennas mean a wider, and thus lower areal energy density.
A weapon that is only useful at say 100m is a total waste of time for a tank. It is important to realise that the areal power density drops as the square of the distance from the antenna. 200m away and the power is one quarter.
Overall, a lethal weapon remains just silly. You would need a semi-trailer sized electrical generator, antennas the size of small buildings, and an enemy that was nailed to the ground.
The World War I generals finally have the gee-whiz decisive trench-clearing weapon that’ll break the Western Front stalemate. 
Or, they would, if the walls of the trenches weren’t an even more effective defense against microwaves than they were against machine gun bullets.
Here’s a storyby a Wired reporter that was exposed detailing the effects he felt. He also mentions it’s been tested 11,000 times with only two injuries (well short of melting.) It takes 16 hours to warm up so it pretty much has to be running constantly if there’s any hope of using it in a timely fashion.
Aside from the power issues making your assertions seem unlikely, there’s the issue of why create such a wildly ineffective lethal weapon. For non-lethal the effort makes sense. it’s hard to create a relatively safe ranged weapon that doesn’t kill. The military has far cheaper, far more convenient, and wildly effective lethal means at their disposal. If the military wants to kill a crowd of demonstrators that’s easy. One Abrams mounts 3 machineguns (one fully tied in with it’s excellent fire control system) and there’s a canister round for the main gun. That’s basically a 120mm shotgun. That’s before you even just start running people over with the 70 ton death winnebago going 45mph. Killing is easy. Why make something like this if they just wanted to kill?
Fiddlesticks! It doesn’t even slow them up!
Jeff Rense is a woo-machine, and his work is both laughable and anti-Semitic. Citing to his program or his website immediately invalidates any of your claims.
Charles Adams?
Love that stuff. 
No, it doesn’t. In fact I didn’t even make any claims.
I am not convinced my sources are credible, nor I am unconvinced. I am simply questioning whether these devices are truly nonlethal. Why accept the official story at face value.
All evidence presented in this thread thus far has been speculatory although I admit it does now seem unlikely to me that these tanks can kill since they are inneficient.
However some military or real technical data would be great to put this issue to rest.
You want us to prove that super-secret weapons systems don’t exist by providing you with the technical data for those nonexistent weapons systems?
There are no “tanks” with directed energy weapons in the U.S. military. The ADS has been mounted on wheeled vehicles of various types, but not on heavily armored vehicles with treads. The story you linked to in the OP is just a complete fabrication.
Just think about this for seven seconds and the answer should be obvious – the United States just got into a lot of hot water for bombarding a hospital in Afghanistan in which about 19 people were killed. The whole world knew about it within hours from all sorts of reputable media organizations, and the outrage was immediate.
And you read something online that was written 12 years ago from a terrible source about hundreds of civilians being melted with a death ray. This story has provoked no outrage, and has never been corroborated, because it’s quite obviously a lie. How anyone can think this story is remotely plausible in this day and age is baffling.
Any practical military data or real technical data would be classified, so you probably won’t find it here. :eek:
Darn that Military-Industrial Illuminati Complex!
Not to mention why go to all the trouble of keeping it secret? The US is perfectly open about using thermobaric weapons which make being on the receiving end of a heat ray look like a walk in the park.
Okay, I am convinced.
Now if we just knew about Area 51.
Not to hijack, but THAT is a metal band name if I ever heard one.
Tony Stark’s first small arc reactor generated 3x10[sup]9[/sup]J per second, if his calculations were correct. That’s the level of power supply we’re looking at, here. If the military had that kind of juice, they’d come up with much more fun things to do with it than just make a heat ray.
I must absolutely commend the Dope for not bringing up a reference to the style of a decade of the last century in directed energy weapons…
I suspect Derleth might have got rather close.
Hey, Charles Addams is eternal and, at this point, his work is more closely associated with the 1960s anyway. His first cartoon didn’t even come out until 1940.